IMPORTANT POINT
Settlement of claim as offered by Insurance company because that is just little more than loss assessed by Surveyor on repair cost basis of damaged vehicle upheld.

ORDER

This appeal has been filed by the appellant M/s. Sulthan Gold Pvt. Ltd. challenging the order dated 26.02.2020 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnataka (in short ‘the State Commission’) in Complaint No.269 of 2017.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant got his vehicle insured with respondent No.2 Insurance Company. The vehicle met with an accident on 09.04.2016 and got heavily damaged. The appellant had taken a Private Car Package Insurance Policy vide Policy No.2311201025480101000 and the policy was valid from 28.03.2016 to 27.03.2017 at insured’s Declared Value (IDV) of Rs.56,25,000/-. The Insurance Company appointed a surveyor and surveyor submitted its report on 14.10.2016 and assessed the loss, which was more than 75% of the IDV. The complainant submitted his claim for total loss as per the provisions of the policy that if the estimated loss is more than 75% of the IDV, the case will be treated as a case of total loss. The Insurance Company demanded the relevant documents as per the provision of the policy to settle the claim. However, the complainant did not supply the original registration certificate of the vehicle to the Insurance Company even on their demand. Thus, the Insurance Company repudiated the claim on 30.12.2016. The complainant then filed a consumer complaint before the State Commission. The complaint was resisted by the Insurance Company on the ground that the complainant did not submit the relevant documents and particularly the original RC, therefore, the claim was closed. However, it was later submitted by the Insurance Company that they had offered an amount of Rs.35,23,000/- for settlement of the claim. However, the complainant did not accept the same. The State Commission finally accepted the claim for the offered amount and ordered a sum of Rs.35,23,000/- to be paid for settlement of the insurance along with cost of Rs.5,000/-.

3. Aggrieved with the order of the State Commission, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant/complainant.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant at the admission stage. Learned counsel stated that the IDV of the car was Rs.56,25,000 and when the surveyor had assessed the loss which was more than 75% of the IDV, it was a case of total loss. Hence, the Insurance Company is bound to settle the claim on the IDV only. Even though the claim was repudiated by the insurance Company on 30.12.2016, the Insurance Company stated before the State Commission that they had offered to settle the claim for an amount of Rs.35,23,000/-, which was not accepted by the complainant. However, the State Commission decided the complaint of the complainant only on the basis of that offer made by the Insurance Company for settlement of the claim. The main objection of the Insurance Company has been that the original Registration Certificate was not submitted by the complainant on the demand by the Insurance Company. As it was a case of total loss, to prevent any misuse of the vehicle, the complainant got the registration of the vehicle cancelled from the competent transport office and therefore, the original R.C. was not supplied to the Insurance Company. Learned counsel referred to the FAQ’s (Motor Insurance) supplied by the Insurance Company and drew attention to the following points:-

“Claims Documents

For Accidental Damage to Insured Vehicle

a. Duly filled and signed claim form & satisfaction voucher

b. Registration Certificate (RC)

c to i.

Claims Documents

Incase of Loss Due to Theft

a. Duly filled and signed claim form & discharge voucher (after loss settlement)

b. Original Registration Certificate (RC)

c to l.”

5. On the basis of the above information, the learned counsel argued that original R.C. is required only in the case of theft whereas in an accidental case, copy of the R.C. would be sufficient because the requirement of submission of original R.C. is not specifically mentioned there. The complainant was ever