Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Mr. Justice K.S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member and Mr. Prem Narain, Member
BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. - Appellant
Versus
PENUMATCHA VENKATA SATYA-NARAYANA MURTHY RAJU - Respondent
Revision Petition No. 2556 of 2012 from Order dated 19.4.2012 In Appeal No. 1236 of 2010 of Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad
Decided on : 26-05-2016
Ms. Sunanda Nimisha, Advocate, for the Petitioner; Mr. C.B. Babu, Advocate, for the Respondent
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the claim under the insurance policy should be allowed based on the actual expenses incurred in repairs, and the admissibility of depreciation on different vehicle parts should be in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy.
Headnote:
Insurance - Vehicle Insurance - Consumer Protection - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 166 - Insurance Act, 1938, Section 64-UM - The court discussed Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 166 and Insurance Act, 1938, Section 64-UM. The court emphasized the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, including the admissibility of depreciation on different vehicle parts and the assessment of loss by the surveyor. The court highlighted that the claim should be allowed based on actual expenses incurred in repairs and not just repair estimates. The court also emphasized that the complainant was not entitled to compensation for loss of income as the vehicle was not repaired despite the lapse of time.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant's insured vehicle was damaged in an accident, and the insurance company assessed the loss and paid a restricted amount based on the assessment. The complainant filed a complaint alleging deficiency on the part of the insurance company, and the District Forum allowed the complaint. The State Commission partly allowed the appeal filed by the insurance company, leading to the filing of this revision petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complainant was not entitled to the rest of the amount based on repair estimates and compensation for loss of income as the vehicle was not repaired despite the lapse of time. The court held that the insurance company did not commit any deficiency in assessing the loss and remitting its payment to the financer as per the terms and conditions of the policy.
Issues: The issues revolved around the assessment of loss, admissibility of depreciation on different vehicle parts, entitlement to compensation for loss of income, and the interpretation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, emphasizing the admissibility of depreciation on different vehicle parts and the assessment of loss by the surveyor. The court emphasized that the claim should be allowed based on actual expenses incurred in repairs and not just repair estimates.
Final Decision: The revision petition filed by the insurance company was allowed, and the impugned orders were set aside, leading to the dismissal of the complaint.
ORDER
Mr. Justice K.S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member—This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 19.4.2014 passed by the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (in short, 'the State Commission') in Appeal No. 1236 of 2010, Bajaj Allianz General Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Penumatcha Venkata Satyanarayna Murthy Raju, by which, while allowing appeal partly, order of District Forum allowing complaint was modified.
2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent is the owner of Lorry bearing registration No. AP-37Y-3225. The complainant insured the said vehicle with the 1st OP/Petitioner Insurance Company. The said vehicle met with an accident on 29.11.2008 at Narsapuram village, Gokavaram towards Rampachodavaram and the lorry was heavily damaged. The complainant took the damaged lorry to Srinivasa Automobiles, Chakradwaram Bandham Village, Rajahmundry, which is the nearest authorised workshop. The said Either dealer estimated the cost of the repairs and the complainant was furnished with detailed estimates of the costs of the repairs at Rs. 2,94,224. The prices quoted are manufacturers listed selling price of the brand. After the completion of the repair work, the complainant made a claim to the Opposite Parties and the opposite parties sanctioned restricted amount of Rs. 1,40,000 against Rs. 2,94,224. When the vehicle was on road and when it was running, the complainant used to earn Rs. 20.000 to Rs. 25.000 p.m. and used to maintain his family members. Alleging deficiency on the part of OPs, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP resisted complaint and admitted issuance of insurance policy and intimation of accident and submitted that surveyor was appointed who assessed the loss to the vehicle of the complainant at Rs. 1,40,000 as per the terms and conditions of the policy. The claim was settled as per the assessment made by the independent surveyor-cum-loss assessor after deducting the depreciation as per the terms and conditions of the policy. Soon after the assessment of the loss by the independent surveyor, the opposite party No. 1 addressed so many letters to the complainant to submit the detailed repairer invoices to the opposite parties and the complainant received those letters but there was no reply. The opposite parties admitted that the vehicle of the complainant is under finance with Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited but denied the allegations that the vehicle now is in the garage of Srinivasa Automobiles, Either dealer, Rajahmundry, etc. Denying any deficiency on their part, prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties, allowed complaint and directed OP to pay Rs. 1,54,224 with 7% p.a. interest and further directed to pay compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 and Rs. 1,000 as cost of litigation. Appeal filed by OP was partly allowed and learned State Commission vide impugned order substituted Rs. 1,54,224 by Rs. 1.45.000 and rest of the order was affirmed against which, this revision petition has been filed.
3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused record.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as complainant has not submitted repair bills and loss assessed by independent surveyor has already been paid to the financer, learned District Forum committed error in allowing complaint and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal partly; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law and vehicle is still in garage without repair and prayed for dismissal of revision petition.
5. Perusal of record reveals that surveyor appointed by OP assessed loss to the tune of Rs. 1,40,000 after deducting depreciation from 5% to 50% on spares as per details annexed with survey report. Complainant has submitted repair estim
