Pankaj Padamchand Maheshwari vs SBI General Insurance Company Ltd. Throu. Its MD and CEO Kishore Kumar Poludasu

Petition challenges order dated 15 June 2023 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, ( National Commission) by which the Respondent is directed to pay to the Petitioner an amount of Rs.36,65,955/towards insurance claim for theft of vehicle -Toyota Fortuner.

¶16

Page No. 1 of 4

¶17

5 February 2025

¶18

Megha 5_wp_770_2024.docx

¶19

The order dated 15 June 2023 was sought to be reviewed and the review application has been rejected by order dated 28 July 2023.

¶20

I have heard Mr. Joshi, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. Vidyarthi, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent.

¶21

After having heard the submissions canvassed by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it appears that the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ( State Commission) initially directed the Respondent to replace the lost vehicle by equivalent model vehicle as on 18 August 2020 alongwith all accessories in addition to compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and cost of Rs.25,000. The Respondent did not challenge order dated 18 August 2020 passed by the State Commission and apparently has accepted the said order. Instead of providing a new vehicle of equivalent model, it appears that the Respondent secured an invoice /quotation of new vehicle of equivalent model of Rs.36,65,955/- and deposited total amount of Rs.38,90,955/- by adding compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and cost of Rs.25,000/- before the State Commission on 28 August 2020. It was Petitioner, who got aggrieved by the order passed by the State Commission and filed First Appeal No.799 of 2020 before the National Commission. The National Commission, instead of improving the order passed by the State Commission has apparently directed payment of amount of Rs. 36,65,955/- to the Petitioner, which was apparently cost of new vehicle of equivalent

¶22

Page No. 2 of 4

¶23

5 February 2025

¶24

Megha 5_wp_770_2024.docx

¶25

model in the year 2020. Thus, in the appeal preferred by the Petitioner, apparently the Respondent has secured some relief.

¶26

After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, in my view ends of justice would meet if the total amount payable by the Respondent to the Petitioner towards settlement of insurance claim can be determined at Rs.38,90,955/-. The Respondent can be made liable to pay interest @ 6% per anuum from the date of theft of the vehicle, which is February 2017. This would ensure that the Petitioner is paid some interest on the amount, which he was supposed to receive in the year 2017.

¶27

5) Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order:-

¶28

(i) Orders dated 15 June 2023 and 28 July 2023 passed by the National Commission are modified to the extent that Respondent shall pay to the Petitioner an amount of Rs.38,90,955/- alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from 1 March 2017 till payment of amount. It appears that an amount of Rs.38,90,955/- has already been paid by the Respondent to the Petitioner on 13 July 2023. Accordingly, Respondent shall pay to the Petitioner interest @ 6% per annum on 38,90,955/from 1 March 2017 till 13 July 2023.

¶29

Page No. 3 of 4 5 February 2025

¶30

Megha 5_wp_770_2024.docx

¶31