Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 416 (HP)

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. v. PREM CHAND

2005-11-08

A.K.GOEL, ONKAR CHAND THAKUR, PREM CHAUHAN

body2005
ORDER Justice Arun Kumar Goel (Retd.) President:- Appellant has been held responsible for payment of Rs. 1,20,000-00 with interest 12% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint dated 27.3.1997 till actual payment was made besides cost of litigation assessed at Rs. 5000/-. Payment has been ordered to be made to the respondent by the appellant within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order of the District Forum. Respondent has been directed to return the salvage of the vehicle to the appellant on receipt of the amount. Appellant is aggrieved from this order. Vehicle being insured with the appellant and having met with accident when the policy was in force are also admitted by the appellant. 2. At the time of hearing Ld. Counsel for the appellant urged that compensation has been allowed on the basis of insureds estimated value i.e. in the sum of Rs. 1,20,000-00. Vehicle was of 1990-model and it met with accident on 25.3.1995, therefore compensation if at all payable, was minus depreciation @ 5% per year to be deducted from insureds estimated value of Rs. 1,20,000-00, therefore, the impugned order was liable to be modified to this extent. In addition to this it was also urged that since Special Power of Attorney was filed belatedly, therefore interest could only be allowed from the date of its filing till the date of order. Interest should have been allowed 9% and not at the rate of 12% as ordered in the impugned order of the Forum and cost assessed was also excessive. Therefore, on all these grounds this appeal deserves to be allowed. On the other hand, Shri Chandel, Ld. Counsel for the respondent controverted all these pleas and urged that the impugned order suffers from no infirmity calling for interference in this appeal, as per him, impugned order is in consonance with law laid down by this Commission who in turn had followed the decision of the National Commission. Regarding interest and cost he urged that grant thereof is in accordance with law. Thus, appeal is liable to be dismissed. 3. So far matter relating to assessment of compensation as per insureds estimated value of the vehicle at the time of Insurance is concerned, compensation is payable at the said value without deducting any depreciation. Regarding interest and cost he urged that grant thereof is in accordance with law. Thus, appeal is liable to be dismissed. 3. So far matter relating to assessment of compensation as per insureds estimated value of the vehicle at the time of Insurance is concerned, compensation is payable at the said value without deducting any depreciation. This question came up for consideration in Appeal No. 185 of 2003, decided on 5.1.2005, in case titled as National Insurance Company Limited versus M/S Amar Tyres. We have examined this decision. In our opinion present appeal is fully covered by this decision of 5.1.2005, and we see no reason to take a different view. 4.Decision of the National Commission in the case of The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Versus G.P. Malhotra 2002 (1) (CPR) 83 (NC), also completely negatives the submission on behalf of the appellant. As such this submission is hereby rejected. 5.Now coming to the question of interest being not allowed prior to the date of filing to the copy of Special Power of Attorney. Again this plea is without Obstance. Special Power of Attorney was executed by Prem Chand respondent in favour of Avtar Singh its certified copy is at pages 185-187 on the file of the Forum below. It is original was on the file of the Commissioner Workmen, Ani in case Savitri Devi Versus Prem Chand.; This appears to have been executed on April 3rd 1995, whereas the present complaint was filed on 27.3.1997. Its being in force on the date of filing of the complaint could not be controverted on behalf of the appellant. That being that position we find not reason as to why the interest be not allowed from the date of filing of the complaint till the deposit/payment of compensation, whichever was earlier. Ordered accordingly. 6. So far cost of Rs. 5000/- being excessive is concerned, again we find no substance in this plea that accident is of 25.3.1995. More than 10-1-2 years have been passed, the matter had not been finalised till date. In these circumstances, we feel that no exception can be taken to the cost of litigation assessed at Rs. 5000/- by the Forum below. Now coming to the last plea of interest on compensation having been wrongly allowed at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 25.3.1997, though Mr. In these circumstances, we feel that no exception can be taken to the cost of litigation assessed at Rs. 5000/- by the Forum below. Now coming to the last plea of interest on compensation having been wrongly allowed at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 25.3.1997, though Mr. Chandel made an attempt to persuade us that this calls also for no interference. However, we are not impressed by what was urged by Mr. Chandel, for the simple reason that keeping in view the present day Bank interest on lending as well as deposits we feel that interest of justice will be well served if it is allowed at the rate of 9% per annum of the compensation instead of 12% as ordered by the Forum below. It is ordered accordingly. 7. No other point was urged. 8. In view of the aforesaid discussion this appeal is partly allowed thereby, modifying the impugned order only to the limited extent of reducing interest 12% PA to 9% per annum on the sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- with effect from 27.3.1997 till the date of payment/deposit, whichever is earlier. Rest of the order of the Forum below is up-held, leaving the parties to bear their costs. Since, the main appeal has been disposed, all interim orders passed from time to time shall stand vacated forthwith. Similarly, pending application (s) if any also stand disposed of.