IMPORTANT POINT
Providential escapes are not so uncommon in serious accidents.

Anup K. Thakur Presiding Member—This Revision Petition No.462 of 2012 has been filed by the petitioner/opposite party no.1 -ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. against the order of the Orissa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Cuttack (for Short, ‘State Commission) dated 11.03.2011 in FA No.246/2007. Vide this order, the State Commission, on a careful consideration of the matter as per records of the District Dorum, had dismissed the appeal, finding it to be devoid on merit.

2. Facts relevant for the disposal of this revision petition are mostly undisputed. The respondent no.1/complainant was a registered owner of a SKODA vehicle (Registration No.23-A-0003) and the same was insured by the opposite party Nos.1-2 (Policy number 3001/1264924/00/000) from 29th Nov., 2005 to 28th Nov. midnight 2006.On 27.3.2006, the vehicle, being driven by the owner’s son who held a valid driving license, met with an accident and suffered damages. The respondent complainant lodged an insurance claim with the opposite party nos.1 & 2 for replacement of vehicle. At the behest of the opposite party, the vehicle was sent to the authorized M/s Mahavir Auto Diagnostics Pvt. Ltd., Bhubaneswar who assessed the damage as Rs. 6,55,361/- first and later revised it to Rs. Rs.10,94,148/-.In between, the surveyors engaged by the petitioner/ opposite parties assessed the loss as Rs.5 to 6 lakh on 26.05.06 and arrived at a final estimate of Rs. 5,60,136/- on 03.06.06, on as is where is basis i.e. without dismantling the vehicle.

3. It was argued before the District Forum that since the vehicle was beyond economic repairs, the complainant’s claim for a replacement vehicle was justified. As per the terms and conditions of the policy, the insured vehicle shall be treated as CTL (total loss) 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 (Insured Declared Value) of the vehicle. Since the final estimated cost given by the authorized dealer satisfied this condition, the complainant was entitled to get a new vehicle from the opposite parties. In view of these averments, the complainant prayed for replacement of the vehicle with a new one and also sought Rs.5 lakhs for mental harassment and loss of the business including cost of the case.

4. Opposite parties nos.1 and 2 contested the complaint, submitting that the exact manner of accident had not been brought forth. They in particular questioned the fact that such a serious accident with such extensive damage had not however resulted in any major injuries. They also raised the issue that since the claim had not been repudiated, and negotiations on the extent of loss were on going, there was no ground on which this consumer complaint could be filed.

5. The District Forum however after hearing all the parties allowed the complaint. It accepted the estimate of loss made by the authorized dealer Mahavir Auto and directed the opposite party No.1, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.10.58.799/- plus Rs.10,000/- , totaling Rs.10,68,799/- with 9% interest from the date of filing of this case.

6. Being aggrieved, the opposite part No.1 – ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. filed an appeal before the State Commission which dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the District Forum, as noted earlier.

7. Being aggrieved with this order, the petitioner/opposite party no.1-ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. has filed this revision petition before this Commission.

8. Heard learned counsel for both parties.

9. Counsel for the petitioner opposite party has taken me through the list of dates commencing with purchase of the policy on 28.11.05, the accident on 27.03.96, intimation to the insurance company on 28.03.06, drawing attention to the fact that the preliminary estimate by the authorized dealer was Rs 6,55,361/- and on this basis, the petitioner had requested the respondent