Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Prem Narain, Presiding Member and C. Viswanath, Member
Sanjay Jain —Petitioner
versus
Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.
and Anr. —Respondents
Revision Petition No.1296 of 2015
(Against the Order dated 20/02/2015 in Appeal No.567/2014 of the State Commission Haryana)
Decided on 10.11.2020
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Sameer Nandwani, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. Navneet Kumar, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
Report of Insurance Surveyors cannot be brushed aside without any cogent reason.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 21(b) : [Consumer Protection Act, 2019—Section 58]—Motor accident—Damage to vehicle—Insurance claim—Vehicle of petitioner insured with respondent for Rs. 18,90,500/-—Said vehicle met with an accident and got damaged—Estimate of repair of car for Rs. 17,51,923/-—Submitted—Since cost of repair was more than 75% of the IEV, petitioner demanded IEV by treating the car as total loss—However, surveyor assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 9,52,865.69/-—District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party to pay Rs. 18,90,500/-—State Commission however reduced the amount to Rs. 10,02,870/-—Hence this revision petition—State commission rightly condoned the delay as satisfied on the ground of delay—Report of surveyors cannot be brushed aside without any cogent reason—District forum has not given any cogent reason for dismissing the report of Surveyor—Since repair cost was not more than 75% of the insured value, therefore, it cannot be considered a case of total loss—Respondent directed to pay Rs. 10,02,870/- as awarded by State Commission with interest @ 5% p.a.—And will also pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5,500/- as cost of litigation. (Paras 11 to 15)
Result: Petition allowed partly.
The court observed that the petitioner's repair estimate of Rs.17,51,923/- was merely a probable or likely cost from a private repairer (authorized dealer), not the actual repair cost, and could not override the surveyor's assessed loss of Rs.9,52,865.69/- to trigger the 75% IDV threshold for constructive total loss under the policy. (!) [12000418850003] (!) [12000418850012] The policy's total loss clause applies "subject to terms and conditions," which include surveyor assessment, and a private estimate alone does not suffice. (!) [12000418850012] The District Forum erred in accepting the estimate while rejecting the surveyor's report without cogent reasons or affidavits from either side.[12000418850006][12000418850012] (!) (!) [12000418850003][12000418850012] (!)
ORDER
This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Sanjay Jain challenging the order dated 20.02.2015 passed in First Appeal No. 567 of 2014 by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short the State Commission).
2. Brief facts of the case are that the Petitioner is the registered owner of the car which was imported from Japan, bearing Registration NO. HR-06W-0999 of Mitsubishi-Outlander-2-4-M-1VEC and got it insured by the Respondent for a period of one year from 21.09.2010 till 20.09.2011. The vehicle was insured with the respondent opposite party for Rs.18,90,500/-. The said vehicle met with an accident on 27.03.2011 and was heavily damaged. Opposite party was informed immediately. As per the instruction of the Respondent the car was taken to their approved dealer
M/s Harit Motors (P) Ltd, G.T. Road, Panipat. The petitioner submitted an estimate of repair of the car for a sum of Rs.17,51,923/- issued by the authorized service station after charging Rs.20,000/-. Since the cost of the repair was more than 75% of the IEV, the petitioner demanded IEV by treating the car as total loss. The opposite party appointed surveyor M/s M.S. Uppal & Associates who assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.9,52,865.69/-. Due to failure on making payment in-spite of repeated reminders to settle the claim, the petitioner filed the Consumer Complaint bearing No. 43 of 2013. The District Forum allowed the complaint and on 07.03.2014 directed the opposite party to pay Rs.18,90,500/- with an interest of 9% p.a. along with Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,500/- as cost. Aggrieved by the decision of the District Forum, the Respondent filed First Appeal bearing No. 567 of 2014 before State Commission which was allowed by the Commission. The State Commission on 20.02.2015 modified the order of the District Forum and reduced the amount to Rs.10,02,870/-. Aggrieved by the decision of the State Commission, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition No. 1296 of 2015 before this Commission on 12.05.2015.
3. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused record. The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the District Forum had passed a very reasonable order and had allowed the amount insured as a total loss because the estimated repair cost was more than 75% of the insured value. There is a specific condition in the policy that if the estimated cost of repair is more than 75% of the insured value, then it will be considered as a total loss. The State Commission has accepted the appeal of the opposite party insurance company and has allowed the insurance claim on the basis of the loss assessed by the surveyor appointed by the insurance company. As per the provisions of the policy, the complainant is entitled to insurance claim for the total loss and therefore the revision petition has been filed. It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the appeal filed by the opposite party before the State Commission against the order of the District Forum was highly belated and it should have been rejected on the ground of delay. However, the State Commission condoned the delay in filing the appeal against all norms. There was a delay of 84 days in filing the appeal as mentioned in the order of the State Commission. The learned counsel argued that in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Postmaster General & Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. (2012) 3 SCC 563 the State Commission should have dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation as the administrative delays in moving the files and obtaining higher orders cannot be considered as sufficient cause. Moreover, the State Commission has condoned the delay without awarding any cost on the opposite party/appellant before the State Commission.
4. In respect of the merits of the case, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the authorized dealer had given an estimate of Rs.17,51,923 for repair of the veh
