Rubi(Chandra) Dutta vs M/S United India Insurance Co.Ltd

Indian Penal Code. In the meanwhile, the Appellant had promptly informed the Respondent Insurance Company about the said accident and the consequent damage caused to the bus. Accordingly, she then requested for assessment of loss sustained including cost of repairs. The Respondent duly appointed Mr. Sujit Kumar Sarkar as Surveyor, who submitted his preliminary report on 21.07.2003 assessing the total loss at Rs. 2,90,000/-. Following the receipt of this report, the Respondent then appointed Mr. Surya Dutt to prepare a detailed Final Report dated 31.12.2003 and as per his investigation, the total amount of damages was computed to be Rs. 2,72,517.90/-.

Works. Thereafter, the mechanical parts were repaired after spending a further sum of Rs.3,38,782/- by Bhandari Motors Pvt. Ltd., Sukchar. The Appellant submitted all the bills and receipts showing payments and requested Respondent to pay the total sum of Rs.

12. Considering the matter from all angles the District Forum was pleased to allow the complaint of the Appellant and directed the Respondent to pay to the Appellant a total sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- together with an interest at the rate of 9%, if the payment was not made within two months from the date of the said order.

13. This order was subject matter of challenge before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal in an appeal filed under Section 15 of the Act. The State Commission also perused the matter in due detail and agreed with the findings that at the relevant point of time bus was being driven by a person holding a valid driving licence. However, it came to the conclusion that Appellant would be entitled to a sum of Rs.

Accordingly, it allowed the plea of the Respondent and thereby set aside and quashed the orders passed by District Forum and State Commission. Hence this Appeal.

C.A. @ SLP(C)No.19246 of 2009 .... Contd.

This unequivocal admission made by the said witness of RTO fully establishes this fact.

22. Unfortunately, all these facts have not been carefully dealt with by the National Commission and still it went on to upset and quash the concurrent findings of the two lower fora.

C.A. @ SLP(C)No.19246 of 2009 .... Contd.

23. Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived fromSection 21(b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view than what was taken by the two Forums.

C.A. @ SLP(C)No.19246 of 2009 .... Contd.

25. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by National Commission cannot be sustained in law. It is necessary to point out that against the C.A. @ SLP(C)No.19246 of 2009 .... Contd.

order of State Commission, whereby the amount of Rs.

26. It is correct that the Act does not contain any provision for grant of interest, but on account of catena of cases of this Court that interest can still be awarded, taking recourse to Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to do complete justice between the parties. We accordingly do so. This principle is based upon justice, equity and good conscience, which would certainly authorize us to grant interest, otherwise, the very purpose of awarding compensation to the Appellant would be defeated. We accordingly deem it fit to award C.A. @ SLP(C)No.19246 of 2009 .... Contd.

interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the aforesaid amount from the date of filing the complaint till it is actually paid.

27. The order of National Commission is set aside and quashed. We accordingly, hold that Respondent is liable to pay the aforesaid amount of Rs. 2,72,517/-

to the Appellant together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date of filing of the application till it is actually paid. Appeal thus, stands allowed to the aforesaid extent. Respondent to bear the cost of the litigation throughout.

28. Counsels' fee Rs. 10,000/-.