Supreme Court of India
SHYAM LAL JAYASWAL versus BRANCH MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND ANOTHER on 8 January 2020
54
[2020] 1 S.C.R.
ASHYAM LAL JAYASWAL
v.
BRANCH MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANYLIMITED AND ANOTHER
B(Civil Appeal Nos. 75-76 of 2020)
JANUARY 08, 2020
[DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.]
CConsumer Protection Act, 1983 – Appellant’s vehicle insuredwith the respondent met with accident – Appellant filed claim beforethe District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum – Claim allowedin the amount of Rs.5,38,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. – Appealsby both the parties – State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission(SCDRC ) partly allowed the appeal of the respondents reducingDthe amount to Rs.4,99,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. – NationalConsumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) further reducedthe claim to Rs.3,81,031/- – On appeal, held: It is not disputed thatthe order of the SCDRC was not challenged by the respondentsbefore NCDRC, but only the appellant contested the reduction ofEthe claim by SCDRC – Impugned order of NCDRC set aside andthat of SCDRC is restored – Submission on behalf of the respondentsis that the order of the SCDRC was duly complied with by therespondent and, as a result, the NCDRC directed recovery of theexcess – In pursuance of the present order, no recovery be madefrom the appellant.F
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 75-76of 2020.
From the Judgment and Order dated 06.11.2018 of the NationalConsumer Disputes Redressal Commission at New Delhi in RevisionGPetition Nos. 2422-23 of 2015.
Anand Shankar Jha, Arpit Gupta, Advs. for the Appellant.
J.P. Sheokhand, Prabhat Kaushik, Advs. for the Respondents.
H
The following Order of the Court was passed:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals arise from an order of the NationalConsumer Disputes Redressal Commission[1]dated 6 November 2018.The appellant is the owner of a Tata Safari vehicle bearing registrationnumber CG-15C-7777. The vehicle was insured with the respondentfor the period 29 March 2012 to 28 March 2013. The vehicle metwith an accident on 2 June 2012. An intimation was furnished to therespondents on 4 June 2012. On 5 June 2012, the claim was submittedto the respondent. The appellant received an estimate for repair of thevehicle in the amount of Rs 5,66,769. A surveyor was appointed bythe respondents who submitted a report on 5 November 2012. Thesurveyor estimated the Insured Declared Value at Rs 5,00,000, thoughaccording to the appellant, the value for the purpose of the contract ofinsurance was determined at Rs 6,00,000. The appellant filed a claimbefore the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ambikapur,Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. The respondents contested the claim. The claimwas 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 March2013.
3. Appeals were filed both by the appellant and the respondentsbefore the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission[2]. TheSCDRC, by its order dated 22 July 2015, partly allowed the appeal filedby the respondents by reducing the amount awarded to Rs 4,99,000,together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Aggrieved by theorder of the SCDRC, the appellant moved the NCDRC in revision. TheNCDRC, by its order dated 6 November 2018 reduced the claimawarded from Rs 4,99,000 to Rs 3,81,031.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellantsubmitted that the NCDRC was in error in reducing the claim awardedby the SCDRC despite the fact that the order of the SCDRC wasaccepted by the respondents who had not initiated any furtherproceedings to challenge it.
1 NCDRC
2 SCDRC
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
A
5. It is not in dispute that the order of the SCDRC was notchallenged before the NCDRC by the respondents. It was only theappellant 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 theends of justice would be met if the order passed by the SCDRC is restored.
B
6. We accordingly allow the appeals, set aside the impugnedorder of the NCDRC dated 6 November 2018 and restore the judgmentand order of the SCDRC. There shall be no order as to costs.
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitsCthat the order of the SCDRC was duly complied with by the respondentand, as a result, the NCDRC directed recovery of the excess. We clarifythat in pursuance of the above order which has been passed in thepresent appeal, no recovery shall be made from the appellant.
DDivya Pandey
E
F
G
H