1 Leave granted.
2 These appeals arise from an order of the National Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission1 dated 6 November 2018. The appellant is the owner of
a Tata Safari vehicle bearing registration number CG-15C-7777. The vehicle
was insured with the respondent for the period 29 March 2012 to 28 March
2013. The vehicle met with an accident on 2 June 2012. An intimation was
furnished to the respondents on 4 June 2012. On 5 June 2012, the claim was
submitted to the respondent. The appellant received an estimate for repair of
the vehicle in the amount of Rs 5,66,769. A surveyor was appointed by the
respondents who submitted a report on 5 November 2012. The surveyor
estimated the Insured Declared Value at Rs 5,00,000, though according to the
at Rs 6,00,000. The appellant filed a claim before the District Consumer
1 NCDRC
Disputes Redressal Forum, Ambikapur, Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. The respondents
contested the claim. The claim was allowed on 12 November 2014 in the
amount of Rs 5,38,000, together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, from
21 March 2013.
3 Appeals were filed both by the appellant and the respondents before the
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission2. The SCDRC, by its order
dated 22 July 2015, partly allowed the appeal filed by the respondents by reducing
the amount awarded to Rs 4,99,000, together with interest at the rate of 6% per
annum. Aggrieved by the order of the SCDRC, the appellant moved the NCDRC in
revision. The NCDRC, by its order dated 6 November 2018 reduced the claim
awarded from Rs 4,99,000 to Rs 3,81,031.
4 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the
NCDRC was in error in reducing the claim awarded by the SCDRC despite the fact
that the order of the SCDRC was accepted by the respondents who had not
initiated any further proceedings to challenge it.
5 It is not in dispute that the order of the SCDRC was not challenged before the
NCDRC by the respondents. It was only the appellant who had contested the
reduction of the claim by the SCDRC. In this view of the matter we find merit in the
grievance of the appellant. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant
submits that the ends of justice would be met if the order passed by the SCDRC is
restored.
2 SCDRC
6 We accordingly allow the appeals, set aside the impugned order of the
NCDRC dated 6 November 2018 and restore the judgment and order of the
SCDRC. There shall be no order as to costs.
7 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the
order of the SCDRC was duly complied with by the respondent and, as a result, the
NCDRC directed recovery of the excess. We clarify that in pursuance of the above
order which has been passed in the present appeal, no recovery shall be made
from the appellant.
[Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud]
[Hrishikesh Roy] New Delhi; January 08, 2020
Civil Appeal Nos.75-76/2020
SHYAM LAL JAYASWAL Appellant(s)
VERSUS
(With appln.(s) for exemption from filing O.T.)
Date : 08-01-2020 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
For Appellant(s) Mr. Anand Shankar Jha, AOR
Mr. Arpit Gupta, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. J.P. Sheokand, Adv.
Mr. Prabhat Kaushik, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
Leave granted.
The appeals are allowed in terms of the signed
reportable order.
Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
(Chetan Kumar) (Saroj Kumari Gaur)
A.R.-cum-P.S. Court Master
(Signed order is placed on the file)