SHYAM LAL JAYASWAL versus BRANCH MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND ANOTHER

Citation: [2020] 1 S.C.R. 54 · Decided: 08-01-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, HRISHIKESH ROY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
54
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 1 S.C.R.
SHYAM LAL JAYASWAL
v.
BRANCH MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY
LIMITED AND ANOTHER
(Civil Appeal Nos. 75-76 of 2020)
JANUARY 08, 2020
[DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.]
Consumer Protection Act, 1983 – Appellant’s vehicle insured
with the respondent met with accident – Appellant filed claim before
the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum – Claim allowed
in the amount of Rs.5,38,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. – Appeals
by both the parties – State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
(SCDRC ) partly allowed the appeal of the respondents reducing
the amount to Rs.4,99,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. – National
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) further reduced
the claim to Rs.3,81,031/- – On appeal, held: It is not disputed that
the order of the SCDRC was not challenged by the respondents
before NCDRC, but only the appellant contested the reduction of
the claim by SCDRC – Impugned order of NCDRC set aside and
that of SCDRC is restored – Submission on behalf of the respondents
is that the order of the SCDRC was duly complied with by the
respondent and, as a result, the NCDRC directed recovery of the
excess – In pursuance of the present order, no recovery be made
from the appellant.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 75-76
of 2020.
From the Judgment and Order dated 06.11.2018 of the  National
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at New Delhi in Revision
Petition Nos. 2422-23 of 2015.
Anand Shankar Jha, Arpit Gupta, Advs. for the Appellant.
J.P. Sheokhand, Prabhat Kaushik, Advs. for the Respondents.
   [2020] 1 S.C.R. 54
54
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
55
The following Order of the Court was passed:
O R D E R
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 appellant, the value for the purpose of the contract of
insurance was determined at  Rs  6,00,000.  The appellant  filed  a  claim
before  the  District Consumer 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.
1 NCDRC
2 SCDRC
SHYAM LAL JAYASWAL v. BRANCH MANAGER, ORIENTAL
INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND ANOTHER
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
56
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 1 S.C.R.
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.
6. We  accordingly  allow  the  appeals,  set  aside  the  impugned
order of the NCDRC dated 6 November  2018  and  restore  the  judgment
and orde
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.