SHYAM LAL JAYASWALversusBRANCH MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND ANOTHER

54            SUPREME COURT  REPORTS
                         [2020] 1 S.C.R. 54                [2020] 1 S.C.R.


A                        SHYAM LAL JAYASWAL
                                      v.
      BRANCH MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY
                 LIMITED AND ANOTHER
B                      (Civil Appeal Nos. 75-76 of 2020)
                             JANUARY 08, 2020
             [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
                         HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.]
C           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
D
     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
E    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.
F
           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
G    Petition Nos. 2422-23 of 2015.
           Anand Shankar Jha, Arpit Gupta, Advs. for the Appellant.
           J.P. Sheokhand, Prabhat Kaushik, Advs. for the Respondents.


H
                                      54
    SHYAM LAL JAYASWAL v. BRANCH MANAGER, ORIENTAL                         55
       INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND ANOTHER

       The following Order of the Court was passed:                        A
                             ORDER
       1. Leave granted.
       2. These appeals arise from an order of the National
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission1 dated 6 November 2018.             B
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    C
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       D
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.
                                                                           E
      3. Appeals were filed both by the appellant and the respondents
before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission 2. 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         F
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              G
accepted by the respondents who had not initiated any further
proceedings to challenge it.

1
    NCDRC
2
    SCDRC                                                                  H
56             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2020] 1 S.C.R.


A            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.
B
            6. We accordingly allow the appeals, set aside the impugned
     order of the NCDRC dated 6 November 2018 and restore the judgment
     and order of the SCDRC. There shall be no order as to costs.
            7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits
C    that the order of the SCDRC was duly complied with by the respondent
     and, as a result, the NCDRC directed recovery of the excess. We clarify
     that in pursuance of the above order which has been passed in the
     present appeal, no recovery shall be made from the appellant.


D    Divya Pandey                                                 Appeals allowed.




E




F




G




H