Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
V.K. Jain, Presiding Member
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
& Ors. —Petitioners
versus
Manjit Kaur & Anr. —Respondents
Revision Petition No.2382 of 2015
(Against the Order dated 25.5.2015 in Appeal No. 829/2013 of the State Commission Punjab)
Decided on 4.12.2015
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioners:Ms. Suman Bagga, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. Rajat Sharma, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
Insurance company is required to pay IDV of insured vehicle to complainant.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 15, 17, 19 and 21—Insurance—Damage to car in accident—District Forum directed insurance company to pay sum of Rs.5,59,900 to complainant after deducting 15% towards depreciation and cost of salvage along with 9% interest—Surveyor has arbitrarily assessed cost of parts as well as cost of labour without taking any estimate or quotation from market—Surveyor reduced cost of most of parts without even indicating on what basis he had made deduction—This renders assessment made by Surveyor wholly arbitrary and irrational—Fora below were right in taking view that insurance company was required to pay IDV of vehicle to complainant—Petitioner company directed to pay interest only from date of filing of complaint—Payment of Rs.2 Lacs on account of death of driver of vehicle shall also be made to complainant. (Paras 8 to 12)
Result: Revision Petition disposed of with directions.
IA/6405/2015
The delay of 7 days in filing the revision petition is condoned. The application stands disposed of.
RP/2382/2015
2. Late Shri Rajwinder Singh, husband of the complainant owned a car, namely, Ford Fiesta, bearing No.PB-19-E-2907, which he had got insured with the petitioner company for the period from 15.12.2010 to 14.12.2011 for the declared value of Rs.5,60,000. The aforesaid vehicle when being driven by the husband of the complainant, met with an accident, in which the vehicle was badly damaged and the driver succumbed to the injuries sustained in the said accident. The vehicle was taken to M/s. Goyal Motors, which estimated the cost of repair at Rs.4,92,518.36. The surveyor appointed by the petitioner company, applying the depreciation provided in the insurance policy, assessed the cost of repair at Rs.1,91,633.11. However, since the complainant, due to financial constraints expressed her inability to get the vehicle repaired, the surveyor making the assessment on Cash Loss Basis, recommending the payment of Rs.1,25,000 to the complainant. Since the aforesaid assessment was not acceptable to the complainant, she approached the concerned District Forum by way of a complaint, seeking compensation to the extent of Rs.5,60,000.
3. The complaint was resisted by the insurance company, primarily on the ground that the assessment was made in the presence of the father of the deceased insured, as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and accordingly they had approved a claim of Rs.1,23,900 on cash loss basis subject to the terms mentioned in the letter dated 20.9.2012, which they sent to the complainant.
4. The District Forum vide its order dated 14.5.2013 directed the insurance company to pay a sum of Rs.5,59,900 to the complainant after deducting 15% towards depreciation and cost of the salvage along with interest 9% per annum from the date of the accident. The insurance company was also directed to pay Rs.2 Lacs to the complainant on account of death of the owner-cum-driver along with interest 9% per annum on that amount from the date of the accident. Another sum of Rs.10,000 was awarded to the complainant as compensation for the mental and physical harassment.
5. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the insurance company approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal having been dismissed vide the impugned order dated 25.5.2015, the insurance company is before this Commission by way of this revision petition.
6. The main dispute in this case is as to whether the insured vehicle was required to be treated as a Complete Constructive Total Loss (CTL) or not. The relevant portion of the insurance policy in this regard reads as under:-
“The insured vehicle shall be treated as a CTL if the aggregate cost of retrieval and/or repair of the vehicle, subject to terms and conditions of the policy, exceeds 75% of the IDV of the vehicle.”
7. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the vehicle is to be treated as a CTL only if the cost is retrieval of repair to the insurance policy after applying the depreciation in terms of the insurance policy, exceeds 75% of the IDV of the vehicle. I however find no merit in this contention. In my opinion, the above referred clause envisages the insured vehicle is to be treated as a CTL if the total cost of its repair or retrieval thereupon of the contribution of the insurance company exceeds 75% of the IDV of the vehicle. Had the intention been to treat the insured vehicle as a CTL only in a case where the cost of repair to the insurance company been more than 75% of the IDV of the vehicle, the above referred clause would have been worded altogether differently. The clause as it appears in the insurance policy clearly means that if the total cost of repair or retrieval of the vehicle irrespective of who bears the said cost, exceeds 75% of the IDV of the vehicle, the insurance company has no option b
