Back
CHANDIGARH CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Sham Sunder, President, Neena Sandhu and S. Jagroop Singh Mahal, Members
WORLD WIDE IMMIGRATION CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD. - Appellant
Versus
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ORS. - Respondents
Appeal No. 389 of 2010
Decided on : 01-04-2011
Mr. Raman Walia, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Paras Money Goyal, Advocate, for the Respondent
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the settlement of the insurance claim as per the surveyor report absolved the insurance company from any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice.
Headnote:
Insurance Claim - Vehicle Damage - Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(u), Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(u), Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(u), Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(u) - The court discussed the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, including the definitions of 'complainant', 'consumer', 'deficiency in service', and 'unfair trade practice'. The court interpreted the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and the concept of 'total loss' as per the Act. The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of these legal provisions and their application to the facts of the case.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant purchased a vehicle and filed a complaint against the insurance company for not declaring the vehicle as a total loss case despite extensive damage, leading to deficiency in service.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the insurance company had settled the claim as per the surveyor report and there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the insurance company.
Issues: The issues revolved around the interpretation of the insurance policy terms, the concept of 'total loss', and the validity of the consent letter for settlement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the insurance company had already settled the claim as per the surveyor report, and there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice. The withdrawal of the consent letter was deemed meaningless without cogent evidence.
Final Decision: The appeal filed by the complainant was dismissed, and the order passed by the learned District Forum was upheld.
ORDER
Mrs. Neena Sandhu, Member - This is an appeal filed by the complainant against order dated 31.8.2010 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) passed in complaint case No. 1456 of 2009.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are, that the complainant purchased a vehicle make BMW X Series X5 3.0 D from M/s. Krishna Automobiles, 125 Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh vide invoice No. VSIP80091/2008-09 dated 29.7.2008 for an amount of Rs. 57,95,000. The said car was purchased after availing loan facility from HDFC Bank Limited and as such the above said vehicle was hypothecated with the said bank. It was submitted that the vehicle was insured with M/s. Reliance General Insurance Company vide Private Car Policy No. 2004782311006209 w.e.f. 27.7.2008 till midnight 28.7.2009 and a net premium of Rs. 1,18,640 was paid. The Insured Declared Value (IDV) of the vehicle was Rs. 55,05,250. On 18.12.2008, the vehicle met with an accident at Chandigarh and suffered extensive damage and an FIR was lodged with the Police Station, Sector 26, Chandigarh. The accident was immediately reported to the office of the OPs and on 30.12.2010, the said vehicle was inspected by Sh. Kailash Chandra, Surveyor and Loss Assessor, who assessed the loss and prepare an estimate for repair. As per the report of the Surveyor, the damage to the vehicle was assessed at Rs. 41,95,457. It was further submitted that the repairs of the said vehicle had crossed 75% of the IDV, therefore, the vehicle was to be declared as total loss as per terms of insurance policy. However, the OPs refused to declare the said vehicle as a total loss case and insisted on getting the repair done. It was next submitted that on 12.2.2009 Er.Vinod Kumar Sharma, Surveyor and Loss Assessor (A-Grade) independently surveyed the vehicle and vide his report dated 12.2.2009 assessed the loss at Rs. 41,56,839 This Surveyor remarked that. "It would therefore not be much economical to get the vehicle repaired as after major repairs the vehicle would not come to its original position." The complainant's company had requested the OPs to treat the insurance claim of the above said car as a total loss claim case, however, the OPs company did not accede to the said request and did not make any payment with regard to the claim lodged with the OP company. It was submitted that vide letter dated 13.4.2009, the complainant company requested for the issuance of Road Worthy Certificate that incase repair was done on the vehicle, then the same would be restored to its original position and it would be safe to drive the same as there were 6 air-bags in the above said vehicle which had all burst opened from the impact of the accident. Vide letter dated 18.4.2009, it was intimated by M/s. Krishna Automobiles that the vehicle could be repaired and restored to a safe road worthy condition. They had also stated that the repair estimate could change once the car was dismantled and actually repaired. It was alleged by the complainant that as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy placed at Annexure C-9 that, "The insured vehicle shall be treated as a case of 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 of the Vehicle." It was further submitted that despite this, the OPs kept delaying the settlement of claim and only paid Rs. 22,99,000 to the complainant as claim amount and an additional sum of Rs. 20 lacs was received on sale of salvage to a third party with the help of the OPs. As such, the total amount thus paid to the complainant was Rs. 42,99,000 i.e. 78.08% of IDV to the complainant company by the OPs company, which is more than 75% of IDV. The above said act of OPs amounts to deficiency in service and hence, the complaint was filed.
3. Reply was filed by the OPs and admitted that the policy was extended to the
