ORDER
S.N. Kapoor, J. (Presiding Member)
1. This is an appeal filed by the complainant for enhancement of awarded compensation of Rs. 78,850 with interest @ 18% per annum for the loss of the vehicle.
2. The case of the complainant-appellant is that his Maruti 800 bearing registration No. CHK 929 was insured. The car met with an accident with the Punjab Roadways Bus at village Rarlo, District Hoshiarpur. One of the occupants of the car died in the accident and the appellant suffered extensive injuries. According to the complainant, the market value of the vehicle had gone upto Rs. 1,64,000 and the amount offered by the respondent was mere pittance. He claimed Rs. 1,50,000 for the value of the Maruti car, Rs. 20,000 on account of indifferent conduct of the Insurance company and Rs. 20,000 as damages for time and energy spent in pursuing his claim.
3. The respondent-Insurance Company contends that a motor accident claim was filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in respect of injuries received by him. There was delay on the part of the appellant as he did not comply with the requirements essential for the payment of the claim. The respondent had been ready and willing to pay a sum of Rs. 78,850 on the total loss basis. Out of Rs. 78,850 a sum of Rs. 59,138 was offered immediately and balance after transfer of the vehicle in favour of the respondent together with salvage.
4. We have heard the parties Counsel and gone through the record.
5. Insofar as the insurance claim for damage to the vehicle is concerned, filing of the claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal could not be a bar in approaching the Consumer Fora in respect of damages to the insured vehicle for it would be a matter between the complainant and the respondent and not with the third party respondent for causing the damage. Dispute between the offending vehicle’s owner and the insurer would arise only on execution of letter of subrogation or power of attorney.
6. There was no dispute that Mr. Harbhajan Singh, Loss Assessor of the respondent had opined in his report that the loss of the damaged parts was to the tune of Rs. 70,900.
7. The State Commission has noticed that the body of the vehicle together with other 62 important parts including ‘steering wheel, absorbers front and back windos suspension, head light rims, bar stabilizer, etc. was totally damaged and in fact it was a case of total loss of the vehicle. These facts have not been disputed before us.
8. This 1989 model Maruti was undisputedly insured for a total sum of Rs. 83,000. The loss occurred after about one year and 7 months. Since the insurance was for a sum of Rs. 83,000, the assessment made in the sum of Rs. 78,850 was recommended by the Branch Office. One could not be oblivious that Shri D.K. Dogra, Legal Officer (Claims) of the respondent in his affidavit on para 2 stated as under:
2. That the insured vehicle No. CHK 929 Maruti make 1989 met with an accident on 6.8.1990. The car was spot surveyed by Mr. Devinder Kumar of Hoshiarpur and final survey was carried out by Mr. Harbhajan Singh. The report of Mr. Harbhajan Singh, Surveyor and Loss assessor is annexed with the affidavit. The matter was, thereafter dealt by the company and office note was prepared. The noting of the company is appended with the affidavit. Branch office of the company recommended the claim for Rs. 78,850 for approval and subject to the verification of driving licence and other required formalities.
9. Since the total loss was assessed at Rs. 78,850 there was no justification for reduction as the amount was sought to be reduced to Rs. 59,138 particularly when the value of the subsequent models has gone up. However, at the same time the question of enhancement should not arise in view of the fact that apart from amount of Rs. 78,850, interest has also been awarded (c) 18% per annum from the date of institution of complaint till realisation. Since in ordinary course interest ranged between 9 and 12% in such matters, this interest (c) 18% would cover not only the interest on money spent on purchasing Maruti but also other considerations like increase in the subsequent model and inconvenience caused and time spent.
10. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not think that there is any ground to further enhance the amount. Consequently, we do not see any reason to take any view different from the view taken by the State Commission.
11. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.