IMPORTANT POINT
Report of Surveyor has much significance in allowing or rejecting claim.

Prem Narain, Member—This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 22.11.2010 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jharkhand, (in short ‘the State Commission’), passed in FA No. 22 of 2010.

2. The brief facts are that the Petitioner/Complainant had purchased a Bolero Pick Up Van costing Rs. 4,12,343 only. The Complainant paid Rs. 1,40,000 and the remaining amount was financed by Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Service Ltd. (OP No. 2). The vehicle was delivered to the complainant on 5.7.2007 by Nexogen Solution Technology (P) Ltd. (OP No. 3). The said vehicle was insured from 20.7.2007 to 19.7.2008 for IDV sum of Rs. 3,91,687 by the ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. (OP No. 1). The vehicle met with an accident for which Barhi PS Case No. 159/07 was registered on 26.7.2007. The police released the vehicle to the complainant who had taken the same for repairs. The repair order was prepared on 24.8.2007 and the claim was lodged with the OP No. 1. The Complainant claimed Rs. 5,52,786 as cost of repairs, but the OP No. 1 was willing to indemnify only to the extent of Rs. 2,29,453, i.e. only to the extent of loss as assessed by the independent surveyor appointed by the OP No. 1. Aggrieved by the act of OP Nos. 1, 2 and 3, a complaint was filed before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hazaribag, (in short ‘the District Forum’).

3. The District Forum, vide order dated 22.10.2009 allowed the complaint as under:—

“17. In the result the present case plaint is allowed. Accordingly, the opposite party No. 1 (ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd.) is directed to pay Rs. 2,29,453 (Rupees two lacs twenty nine thousand four hundred fifty three) only against insurance claim compensation of Rs. 5000 (Rupees five thousand) only and Rs. 1,000 (Rupees one thousand). Cost of litigation to the opposite party No. 2 (M/s. Mahendra and Mahendra Financial Service Ltd., Ranchi) within one month from this order to adjust the amount against loan advanced to the complainant. The opposite party No. 2 is also directed that adjustment of dues remaining amount of any to be refunded to the complainant. In case of failure on the part of opposite party No. 1 total aforesaid awarded amount Rs. 2,35,453 would carry an interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 4.9.08 till final payment and the complainant would be entitled for execution of this order through the process of the forces including the steps as provided under Section 27 of the Act.”

4. Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant preferred an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission vide order dated 22.11.2010 dismissed the appeal.

5. Hence the present revision petition.

6. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 3 has been proceeded ex parte.

7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner/complainant stated that the vehicle was insured for an IDV of Rs. 3,91,687. The vehicle was damaged completely in accident. The surveyor appointed by the respondent No. 1, Insurance Company has assessed the loss as Rs. 2,29,036. The State Commission has observed in its order that in case of total loss only 75% IDV is payable. This observation of the State Commission is totally wrong as there is no such condition in the policy. The learned Counsel argued that the State Commission has wrongly interpreted the clause relating to total loss, which says that the insured vehicle will 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. The learned Counsel further mentioned that the estimate of repairs from the authorised dealer of Mahindra & Mahindra Company was for Rs. 5,52,786. The estimate shows about 97 items to be repaired or to be changed. The surveyor appointed by the Insurance Company in his report has only recomme