Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Prem Narain, Presiding Member C. Viswanath, Member
ICICI Lombard General Insurance
Co. Ltd. —Appellant
Versus
Mayur Batra & Anr. —Respondents
First Appeal No. 101 of 2009
(Against the Order dated 21/01/2009 in Complaint No. 216/2007 of the State Commission Delhi)
Decided on 28.2.2020

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant :Mr. D. Vardarajan, Advocate
For the Respondent:For Respondent No.1:Mr. N.P. Sahni, Advocate
For Respondent No.2: Ex-Parte

IMPORTANT POINT
There can be no question of repair of vehicle in case of total loss of vehicle in accident.

Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21 [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 51] – Insurance – Damage to insured vehicle in accident – Alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice – State Commission directed to pay to Complainant insured value of vehicle in question less 5% depreciated value, cost of litigation of Rs.10,000/- to Complainant and entire amount of Rs. 4,81,148/- for repairs of vehicle – Though vehicle was badly damaged and needed replacement, Insurance Company insisted on repair of vehicle by dealer – Though vehicle got damaged badly in accident, Appellant- Insurance Company was not willing to concede to declare total loss of vehicle and give sum assured to Complainant – State Commission rightly held that Appellant shied away from their obligation under contract of insurance – Impugned order passed by State Commission was justified – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 5, 10, 11 and 12)
Result: Appeal dismissed.

ORDER

C. Viswanath, Member—The present Appeal is filed by the Appellants under Section-19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “State Commission”) in Complaint No.216/2007 dated 21.01.2009.

2. The case of the Complainant is that he purchased a Ford Endeavour Sports Utility Vehicle for Rs.13,57,000/- from Respondent No.2/Opposite Party No.2, who was the authorized dealer of Ford India Pvt. Ltd. The vehicle was insured with the Appellant/Opposite Party No.1 ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. at a premium of Rs. 50,550/-, vide covering note No.PC1534231 dated 28.02.2006 from 28.02.2006 to 27.02.2007. The said vehicle met with an accident near Ludhiana on 08.12.2006. The vehicle was badly damaged and the police was intimated about the accident. The front body of the vehicle was crushed like paper. The Complainant contended that the air bag also failed to inflate. The wind screen was broken and injured the Complainant. On 11.12.2006, the vehicle was towed to the workshop of Respondent No.2 for inspection and assessment of loss. The vehicle was inspected by the technical staff and the cost of repair was assessed at Rs.14 lakhs. The body shell was damaged and chassis was cracked and needed replacement. Insurance claim for the same was lodged with the Appellant-Insurance Company to pay the sum assured, as the cost of repair was estimated to be more than the cost of the new vehicle, treating it as a total loss. The Appellant in collusion with Respondent No.2, however, approved a sum of Rs.3 lakhs for carrying out the repair rather than pay the sum assured. As late as on 31.03.2007 Respondent No.2 informed the Complainant that the vehicle had been repaired and would be released on payment of Rs.4,81,148/- towards repair charges. In May, 2007 he was further informed to pay Rs.1,91,000/-, as the balance amount was to be paid by the appellant Company. The Complainant upon inspection noticed that the brakes were not working and hence the vehicle could not be taken on a test drive. Respondent No.2 was also unable to give any assurance regarding the safety of the vehicle, and that the vehicle had been restored to its original condition. It was also admitted by Respondent No.2 that “The Accidental deformities can be removed only by replacement of the body of the vehicle.” Refusal of the Appellant and Respondent No.2 to get the vehicle fully restored to its original condition, thus, amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. A Complaint was, therefore, filed before the State Commission with the following prayer:

“(a) Direct the OP1 to pay the claim to the complainant to the extent of the IDV i.e. Insured’s declared value of Rs.13,03,400/- as it is a case of total loss and the vehicle cannot be made roadworthy again to its condition at the time of accident;

In the alternative, to relief (a)

1. Direct the OP1 and OP2 to repair the said vehicle to the fullest as per original estimate of OP2 to make it roadworthy by replacing the broken chassis and the damaged body shell etc. to restore the vehicle to its original condition to remove all the deformities from the vehicle;

2. Direct the OP1 to bear all expenses of repair without deducting/disallowing expense for any of the parts; and,

3. Direct the OP1 and OP2 to extend the warranty to the so repaired vehicle and ensure its safety and roadworthiness owing to the broken chassis and damaged body shell;

(b) Award a sum of Rs.500,000/- towards distress, harassment, mental agony, loss of work, tax cost and out of pocket expenses;

(c) Award a sum of Rs. 4,90,500/- on account of loss of use of vehicle by the complainant since 08.12.2006 the day of accident till 31.10.2007 and thereafter at the rate of Rs.1500/- per day for each day;

(d) Award the crane charges amounting to Rs.12,000/-;

(e) Award the cost on account of the depreciation of the vehicle due to its non-use amo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

IMPORTANT POINTThere can be no question of repair of vehicle in case of total loss of vehicle in accident.

IMPORTANT POINT
There can be no question of repair of vehicle in case of total loss of vehicle in accident.