Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Ashok Bhan, President and Vineeta Rai, Member
VINIT POONIA - Appellant
Versus
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ANR. - Respondents
Revision Petition No. 2203 of 2007 from Order dated 20.2.2007 in Appeal No. 1209 of 2005 of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana
Decided on : 22-02-2012
Mr. Abhishek Gautam, Advocate, for the Appellant; Ms. Namita Sharma, Advocate, for the Respondent
The central legal point established is the determination of the extent of damage to the insured vehicle and the appropriate basis for claim settlement, i.e., total loss basis or repair basis, as per the IRDA guidelines.
Headnote:
Insurance - Vehicle Insurance - 15.1.2003 - 17.10.2003 - IRDA guidelines - Mechanical failure - Total loss basis - Repair basis - 9% p.a. - [KEYWORD] - Vehicle Insurance - 15.1.2003, 17.10.2003 - IRDA guidelines
Fact of the Case:
Complainant's vehicle was insured and got damaged in an accident. Dispute arose regarding the extent of damage and the basis for claim settlement.
Finding of the Court:
The State Commission partly allowed the appeal and directed the Insurance Company to pay Rs. 2,20,325 to the Complainant on repair basis. The Revision Petition was allowed, setting aside the State Commission's order, and directing the Insurance Company to pay Rs. 4,40,000 on total loss basis.
Issues: Dispute over the extent of damage to the insured vehicle and the basis for claim settlement - Total loss basis vs. repair basis.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the extensive damage to the vehicle and concluded that it was a fit case of total loss, not in a repairable condition, and directed the Insurance Company to pay the insured sum of Rs. 4,40,000 on total loss basis.
Final Decision: The Revision Petition was allowed, setting aside the State Commission's order, and directing the Insurance Company to pay the insured sum of Rs. 4,40,000 on total loss basis.
ORDER
Ashok Bhan, President - Complainant-Petitioner herein has filed this Revision Petition against the judgment and order dated 20.2.2007 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana (in short, the State Commission ) in appeal No. 1209/05 whereby the State Commission has partly allowed the appeal filed by the Respondent Insurance Company and modified the order of the District Forum to the extent that the Insurance Company shall be liable to pay Rs. 2,20,325 on repair basis' instead of Rs. 4,40,000 on total loss basis' to the Complainant along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of intimation of the repudiation of the claim till payment.
Facts:
2. Complainant/Petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle (Mahindera Bolero GLX EI-2002 Jeep) bearing registration No. HR-03L-0007. He got the vehicle insured with the Respondent No. 2 on 15.1.2003 for a period of one year and paid the insurance premium of Rs. 16,731. On 17.10.2003, the vehicle was going from Fatehabad to Hisar and when it reached near Village Baropal, suddenly a blue cow (Neel Gai) dashed against the vehicle as a result of which it was damaged completely. Intimation about the accident was given to the Insurance Company on 17.10.2003 itself. Respondent appointed M.C. Chitra, Spot Surveyor who found the vehicle to be totally damaged and not in a condition of being repaired. Respondent, thereafter appointed A.S. Duggal, Surveyor and Loss Assessor to assess the loss. A.S. Duggal inspected the vehicle and after several months of accident submitted his report. As per his report, the loss was not total and the vehicle could be repaired. He assessed the loss at Rs. 2,20,325.66. According to him, the accident was due to a mechanical failure. One of the reasons given was that the engine assembly had run without the engine oil for substantial time. According to the said report, the damage to the engine of the vehicle was due to mechanical failure for which the Insurance Company was not liable to indemnify the Petitioner. Petitioner vide his letter dated 19.2.2004 informed the Respondent that the report of the Surveyor was not acceptable. However, on the basis of report of A.S. Duggal, Surveyor, the Respondent Insurance Company informed the Petitioner that in case of assessment of loss less than 75% of the sum insured, they were liable to settle the claim on repair basis' as per IRDA guidelines. They also requested the Petitioner to get the vehicle repaired and submit the bill accordingly. Petitioner did not get the vehicle repaired as according to him, the claim was required to be settled on total loss basis . Finally, the Insurance Company vide letter dated 12.7.2004 repudiated the claim and closed the file.
3. Petitioner, being aggrieved, filed the complaint before the District Forum seeking a direction to the Respondent to settle the claim on total loss basis' and to pay Rs. 4,40,000 towards the price of the vehicle along with interest @ 18% p.a. apart from Rs. 20,000 as compensation.
4. Respondent, on being served, put in appearance and filed its written statement resisting the complaint, inter alia, on the grounds that the vehicle had not suffered total loss in the accident and in fact the quantum of loss was less than 75% of the insured sum because there was no direct impact on the engine assembly. That the Petitioner was requested to get the vehicle repaired and submit the bill accordingly but he failed to do so.
5. District Forum came to the conclusion that the vehicle had been extensively damaged and could not be repaired. Accordingly, District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the Insurance Company to pay Rs. 4,40,000 to the Petitioner on total loss basis' after deducting salvage value of Rs. 8,825 along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of repudiation of the claim till realization.
6. Respondent, being aggrieved, filed the appeal before the State Commission. State Commission found that the engine assembly had run without the engine
