Back
CHANDIGARH CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Maj. Gen. S.P. Kapoor, Presiding Member and Devinderjit Dhatt, Member
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED - Appellant
Versus
JATINDER SINGH WALIA AND ANR. - Respondents
R.B.T. No. 1820 of 2008 in Appeal No. 766 of 2001
Decided on : 23-04-2009
Mr. Munish Goel, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Sudhanshu Makkar, Advocate, for the Respondent
Condition No. 3 of the insurance policy does not allow the insurance company to pay the insured the market value as assessed by the Surveyor on the date of the accident.
Headnote:
Insurance - Car Insurance Claim - Condition No. 3 of the policy - [MOTOR CAR INSURANCE] - [Insurance] - [Condition No. 3 of the policy] - [The court discussed Condition No. 3 of the policy, which states that the company may repair, reinstate, or replace the motor car or pay the actual value of the part damaged or lost less depreciation, not exceeding the insured's estimated value of the motor car at the time of the loss or damage. The court upheld the view that this condition does not give the liberty to the insurance company to pay the insured the market value as assessed by the Surveyor on the date of the accident.]
Fact of the Case:
The complainant's car was insured for a value of Rs. 1,05,000. After an accident, the insurance company offered Rs. 50,000 as the market value of the car, while the complainant claimed the insured amount of Rs. 1,05,000 along with compensation for parking charges.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the view that the complainant was entitled to the amount as assessed by the Surveyor after applying due depreciation to the insured value of the car.
Issues: Dispute over the amount to be paid by the insurance company for the total loss of the insured car.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that Condition No. 3 of the policy does not give the insurance company the liberty to pay the insured the market value as assessed by the Surveyor on the date of the accident.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed as it lacked substance, and the impugned order was upheld.
ORDER
Maj. Gen. S.P. Kapoor, Presiding Member - This is an appeal received by transfer from Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission against order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) dated 18.6.2001 passed in Complaint Case No. 561 of 2000 : Sh. Gagandeep Singh v. United India Insurance Co. Limited.
2. In nutshell, the case of the complainant is that he owns a Contessa Car, which was insured with the OP for a sum of Rs. 1,05,000 for the period from 3.11.1999 to 2.11.2000. The car met with an accident on 30.12.1999 and the same was badly damaged. Information about the accident was given to the OP on whose advice, the complainant got the car inspected by M/s. Yuvraj Motors Limited, authorized dealer of Hindustan Motors Limited. M/s. Yuvraj Motors Limited estimated the loss to the tune of Rs. 1,90,299.80Ps. Since the estimate prepared by M/s. Yuvraj Motors Limited was not acceptable to the OP, it deputed its Surveyor to assess the loss. The Surveyor after checking the vehicle declared it to be a total loss. Accordingly, the complainant approached the OP for payment of the insured amount i.e. Rs. 1,05,000 on account of the total loss of the car along with compensation @ Rs.500 per day as parking charges of the car in the garage. Since, the same had not been done, this complaint was filed.
3. The case of OP, on the other hand is that the claim had been settled by an offer to pay an amount of Rs. 50,000 as the car was not worth more than this value and it had been overvalued at the time of seeking the insurance policy. It has also been stated by the OP that the market value of the car was as on the date of accident was assed by Sh. S. P. J. Singh, Surveyor as Rs. 65,000 and including the salvage value of Rs. 15,000 and therefore, as per the policy, the company settled the claim and offered Rs. 50,000 to the complainant.
4. The learned District Forum has in the impugned order recorded that the car in question had been insured for a value of Rs. 1,05,000 and the premium had been charged based on that amount. Further, referring to Exhibit C-7 i.e. the survey report, it has been observed by the learned District Forum that the assessed loss was Rs. 1,21,233 including Rs. 16,500 as labour. Further, the Surveyor had given an assessment of Rs. 99,750 after taking into consideration 5% as depreciation. The Surveyor had also given the market value of the car as Rs. 65,000 and in the end, the Surveyor had recommended that the loss be considered on the market value of the car on the date of accident and not on the estimated price given in the cover note. The learned District Forum has further recorded that Condition No. 3 of the policy gives the insurer following option i.e. either to get the car repaired or replace the car or may pay in cash the amount of actual value of the part damaged or loss less depreciation, which in no case was exceed the insured estimated value of the car at the time of loss. The above condition as per the learned District Forum talks of insured estimated value of the vehicle and not the market value as may be found on the date of assessment. The learned District Forum, therefore, held the view that the complainant could not be paid the market price as found on the date of assessment as Condition No. 3 of the policy did not talk of the market value at all. The learned District Forum, therefore, held the view that OP was liable to pay the insured amount of Rs. 99,750 as worked out by the Surveyor after permitting 5% depreciation on the sum insured. Accordingly, vide the impugned order, the learned District Forum directed the OP to pay the complainant a sum of Rs. 99,750 within a period of one month through the Bank Draft or a crossed cheque failing which the complainant was entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till payment. The learned District Forum, however, held the OP entitled to the salvage, which the complainan
