Back
2022 Supreme(SC) 1388
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Sanjiv Khanna, Bela M. Trivedi, JJ.
Jyotika – Appellant
Versus
Tata Aig General Insurance Company Limited & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. of 2022 (Arising Out of Slp (C) Nos. 21312-21313 of 2019)
Decided On : 16-03-2022
Mr. Osama Suhail, Advocate, Mr. Samama Suhailmr, Advocate, Mr. R S Sharmams. Anchal Sharma, Advocate, Ms. Puja Kesarwani, Advocate, Ms. Anchal Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Manish Verma, Advocate, Dr. Kedar Nath Tripathy, Advocate, Mr. Bhuwan Raj, Advocate, For the Appellant / Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Advocate, Mrs. K. Enatoli Sema, Advocate, Ms. Chubalemla Chang, Advocate, Mr. Manish Sonikhiya, Advocate, Mr. Manish Verma, Advocate, Mr. Amit Suren, Advocate, Mr. Kedar Nath Tripathy, Advocate, For the Respondent.
The court emphasized the importance of considering the condition of the car and the items required to be replaced or repaired in determining the compensation payable under the insurance policy.
Headnote:
Insurance Claim - Car Insurance - Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 12, Section 14 - The court discussed the dispute over the repair cost of a car involved in an accident and the compensation payable under the insurance policy. The court examined the surveyor's report and the items required to be replaced or repaired to make the car roadworthy, and ultimately directed the insurance company to make a payment of Rs. 5 lakhs to the appellant.
Fact of the Case:
A new car was purchased and insured, but it met with an accident within six months. There was a dispute over the repair cost, and the lower courts had given varying directions on the compensation payable.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant had not been able to use the car, which was outdated and possibly junk. It directed the insurance company to make a payment of Rs. 5 lakhs to the appellant within a stipulated period, failing which interest would be payable.
Issues: Dispute over repair cost, compensation payable under the insurance policy, delay in the revision petition, and the condition of the car.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the list of items required to be replaced or repaired, and the fact that the appellant had not been able to use the car, and based on these factors, directed the insurance company to make the payment.
Final Decision: The civil appeals were allowed, and the insurance company was directed to make a payment of Rs. 5 lakhs to the appellant within a stipulated period, failing which interest would be payable.
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. In the present case, a new car was purchased on 30.03.2012 for Rs. 6,80,688/- and was insured for the said amount under the cashless policy of respondent No. 1. It is an accepted and admitted position that the car met with an accident on 27.08.2012, within six months from the date of purchase of the car. As per the appellant, it was a case of complete loss and the car dealer/the work shop had estimated the cost of repairs at Rs. 6,50,822/-.
3. The surveyor, however, had estimated the repair cost at Rs. 2,49,723/-. Due to this dispute, the workshop did not carry out the repairs under the cashless policy. On the contrary, they raised a claim for demurrage and parking charges.
4. The District Consumer Forum, by a detailed order, partly allowed the claim petition and directed the respondent- Insurance Company to pay Rs. 6,48,031/-, that is, the value of the car along with interest @ 7% per annum w.e.f. 22.08.2013.
5. The State Commission, however, partly reversed the directions restricting the amount payable in terms of the report of the surveyor, that is Rs. 2,49,723/- along with interest @ 9% per annum. Compensation of Rs. 10,000/- was awarded. The workshop was directed to not levy parking charges or valet charges.
6. Aggrieved, the appellant had preferred a revision petition before the National Forum which was dismissed on ground that it was barred by a delay of 108 days and sufficient explanation for the delay had not been given. Interestingly, the order in 13 paragraphs examines facts, but does not discuss the real issue with reference to the surveyor report and items mentioned therein, which were required to be replaced or repaired to make the car road worthy.
7. It is also a matter of fact that the car could never be repaired and given back to the appellant in a drivable condition.
8. We have also examined the list enclosed at page 77 (Annexure P-9), which indicates the items required to be replaced and the estimated cost as given by the authorized workshop as well as the cost indicated in the surveyor's report. Most of the items to be replaced have fixed price. Genuine parts had to be used.
9. On the last date of hearing, learned counsel for the appellant had stated that the appellant would like to give quietus to this old matter. If the respondent/Insurance Company makes payment of Rs.5 lakhs the matter can be closed. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company states that the Insurance Company is ready to make payment of Rs.3.5 lakhs.
10. In view of the factual position, specifically the list of the items which were required to be replaced or repaired, we feel that the suggestion made by the appellant should be accepted.
Admittedly, even amount of Rs.2,49,723/- has not been paid. The appellant has not been able to use the car, which today is outdated and possibly junk.
11. We, accordingly, direct the respondent - Insurance Company to make payment of Rs.5 lakhs to the appellant within a period of four weeks. In case they do not pay Rs.5 lakhs within the stipulated period, they shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the order passed by the Consumer Forum till the payment is made.
12. The civil appeals are allowed in the aforesaid terms.
13. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
