Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, Vs Kailashchand Bansal

¶1

1 / 4

¶2

2024:CGHC:41019

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WP227 No. 493 of 2024

¶6

1 - Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch Manager, 5-8 And 5-9, Second Floor, C.G. Plaza, Agrasen Chowk, In Front Of Telephone Exchange Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

1 - Kailashchand Bansal S/o Shrinivas Bansal, Aged About 55 Years R/o Sitapur, Tehsil R/o Sitapur, Tehsil Sitapur, District Sarguaj Chhattisgarh.

¶10

... Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr. Utsav Mahiswar, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Rishabh Gupta, Advocate.

¶12

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi

¶13

Order On Board

¶14

17-10-2024

¶15

1. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.

¶16

2. This petition has been preferred against the award dated 09.04.2024 passed by Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Ambikapur {henceforth, 'Lok Adalat'} in Case No. 399 of 2022 (Kailashchand Bansal Vs. Mananger, Shriram General Insurance Company Limited) whereby learned Lok Adalat has awarded a total sum of 4,26,482 /- as compensation along with₹ interest @ 7 percent per annum from the date of filing of application till its realization and further awarded penal interest @ 09 % the amount of compensation, if the same is not deposited within the period of 30 days from the date of award. In additional, an amount of ₹ 1,00,000 has also been awarded to respond / claimant for mental and financial loss.

¶17

2 / 4

¶18

3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that respondent – Kailashchand Bansal is registered owner of Renault Capture Car bearing registration No. CG 15 DN 8521, which was insured with the petitioner / Insurance Company. That car met with an accident on 04.01.2022 and got damaged, thereafter, the same was sent to show-room for repairing, thereafter, Surveyor of petitioner / Insurance Company came there and inspected the vehicle and assessed the demurrage amount to the tune of ₹ 4,26,482/-, despite that aforesaid amount was not paid to respondent/claimant, therefore, respondent / claimant instituted aforesaid case before the Permanent Lok Adalat, Ambikapur, at Sarguja, in which, vide order dated 9.4.2024 award was passed in his favour, as has been mentioned in opening paragraph of the order.

¶19

4. Being aggrieved & dissatisfied with the same, the petitioner /Insurance Company has preferred instant writ petition challenging the same.

¶20

5. At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner / Insurance Company would submit that the petitioner is ready & willing to pay actual amount of compensation of ₹ 4,26,482/- along with interest. His only objection is with regard to amount granted to the respondent/claimant to the tune of 1,00,000/-₹ towards mental and financial loss, which is higher side, hence the same deserves to be reduced suitably.

¶21

6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent / claimant would submit that although total damage of vehicle was caused to the tune of ₹ 7,13,676/-, but Surveyor of the Petitioner / Insurance Company has assessed demurrage amount only to the tune of 4,26,482/-, that survey was got done in₹ the month of January, 2022, despite that no amount has been paid by the Insurance Company till date. This fact itself shows malafide intention of the petitioner / Insurance Company to cause agony and financial loss to the respondent / claimant. Hence, he submits that amount awarded on account of

¶22

3 / 4

¶23

mental and financial loss cannot be termed to be on higher side, therefore, this petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶24

7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available alongwith original record of the trial Court.

¶25

8. It is not in dispute that accident occurred in the month of January, 2022 and Surveyor of the Insurance Company had also inspected the vehicle in the same month and assessed demurrage amount to the tune of 4,26,482/-. In₹ such a situation, petitioner / Insurance Company ought to have paid amount of compensation immediately, but instead thereof, Insurance Company kept hanging to the respondent / claimant by not paying the aforesaid amount. It is also apt to be noted here that impugned award was passed on 09.04.2024, despite that till date no amount has been paid, this conduct of petitioner / Insurance Company cannot be appreciated, rather it shows its malafide intention to cause delay in payment of amount of compensation. In such a situation, amount of ₹ 1,00,000/- granted for mental agony and financial loss to the claimant alongwith the total amount of compensation, cannot be termed as on higher side, rather harassment of respondent / claimant by petitioner/ Insurance Company has not been ended yet, therefore, I do not find any merit in the instant petition warranting interference of this Court.

¶26

9. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. However, considering the aforesaid facts & circumstances of the case, it is directed that the petitioner / Insurance Company shall pay the aforesaid amount of compensation as per terms of impugned award within a period of 30 days from today, else interest @ 15% shall be payable to the respondent / claimant on the amount of award.

¶27

Sd/-

¶28

(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)

¶29

AMIT Digitally signedby AMIT KUMAR KUMAR DUBEYDate: DUBEY 2024.10.2417:22:04 +0530

¶30

Judge

¶31

4 / 4

Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, v. Kailashchand Bansal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, v. Kailashchand Bansal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C.g. State Warehousing Corp. Vs Uttam Kumar Sahu and Or.s

C.g. State Warehousing Corp. Vs Smt. Chitrarekha and Ors.

Smt. Nema Bai (Deleted) Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Lalita Yadav Vs Chief General Manager

Toran Lal Deshmukh Vs The Divisional Forest Officer Forest Division Durg and Ors.

Bodhiram Nishad Vs Lallu Prasad Singh