Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.S. Gupta, Presiding Member;
Mrs. Rajyalakshmi Rao & Mr. B.K. Taimni, Members
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.—Appellant
versus
M/S. SAURABH RESORTS PVT. LTD.—Respondent
First Appeal No. 7 of 2003—Decided on 16.3.2004
Counsels for the Parties :
For the Appellant :Mr. Ravinder Zadoo, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. P.K. Kaushik, Advocate.
The insured party is entitled to the market value of the car at the time of the accident in the case of total loss, as per the legal precedent set in Oriental Insurance Co. v. Suresh Aryan Karande.
Headnote:
Insurance - Car Insurance - Market value of car at the time of accident
Fact of the Case:
The respondent's car met with an accident and the appellant, an insurance company, offered to pay a lower amount than the claimed sum for the total loss of the car.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent was entitled to the market value of the car at the time of the accident, as per the decision in Oriental Insurance Co. v. Suresh Aryan Karande. The court modified the impugned order and directed the appellant to pay Rs. 5,25,000 on a total loss basis.
Issues: Dispute over the amount to be paid for the total loss of the insured car.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the legal principle that the insured party is entitled to the market value of the car at the time of the accident, as established in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. v. Suresh Aryan Karande.
Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed, and the appellant was directed to pay Rs. 5,25,000 on a total loss basis to the respondent.
Mr. Justice K.S. Gupta, Presiding Member—This appeal is directed against the order dated 4.12.2002 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Uttaranchal, Dehradun whereby appellant/opposite party was directed to pay Rs. 7,19,000/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from 1.4.2000 and cost.
2. Facts giving rise to this appeal lie in a narrow compass. Respondent filed complaint alleging that car No. UP 14 J 9797 was purchased by it from M/s. Prime Honda Capital Cars (P) Ltd. Car was insured with the appellant for Rs. 7,16,000/- upto the period 13.1.2000. On its way to Delhi from Haldwani the car met with an accident with a truck near village Sukhera, PS Simboli on 1.1.2000. Appellant offered to pay on total loss basis after a lapse of 11 months an amount of Rs. 5,25,000/- as against the claimed amount of Rs. 7,16,000/- which was not accepted by the respondent. On complaint being filed, the appellant contested it by filing written version. It was not denied that car was insured for a sum of Rs. 7,16,000/- and it met with accident on 1.1.2000. However, it was pleaded that survey of car was made twice and on total loss basis, an amount of Rs. 5,25,000/- was approved and the appellant was not guilty of any delay in settling the claim.
3. Relying on the decision in Oriental Insurance Co. v. Suresh Aryan Karande, II (1992) CPJ 484 (NC), the submission advanced by Mr. Ravinder Zadoo for appellant was that the car was of 1998 model and on total loss basis the respondent is entitled to the market value on the date of accident thereof and not the amount for which it was insured. As to the market value of car he invited our attention to the Surveyor’s report dated 30.6.2000 (copy at pages 28-33). In view of ratio in Suresh Aryan Karande’s case (supra), the respondent is entitled only to the market value of car at the time of accident which was estimated in said report which we have no reason to disbelieve, at Rs. 5,25,000/- which amount is payable only on return of salvage by the respondent. State Commission before whom said decision rendered by this Commission was also cited, was bound by it. Impugned order, thus, deserves to be modified to that extent.
4. Accordingly, while partly allowing appeal, the order dated 4.12.2002 is modified to the extent that appellant will pay Rs. 5,25,000/- on total loss basis on return of salvage by the respondent. No order as to cost.
Appeal partly allowed.
––
