SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
C. Viswanath, Presiding Member
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. —Appellant
versus
M/s. Coastal Agro Industries Ltd. —Respondent
First Appeal No.780 of 2020
(Against the Order dated 06/12/2019 in Complaint No.21/2015 of the State Commission Andhra Pradesh)
Decided on 18.1.2021

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Mr. Maibam N. Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. B. Suyodhan, Advocate

IMPORTANT POINT
Reimbursement of amount paid towards repair of damages caused in accident of vehicle, upheld.

Headnote:

Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 19 : [Consumer Protection Act, 2019—Section 41]—Motor accident—Damage of vehicle—Insurance claim—Complainant paid the entire repair charges of Rs. 23,20,332—Reimbursement claim repudiated—Surveyor assessed the lose of Rs. 20,30,459/- and salvage value at Rs. 2.00 lakhs—Report of second surveyor could not be relied upon since the appellant appeal to have appointed the second surveyor only to subvert the opinion of the first surveyor—First surveyor had categorically held that the engine got accidentally damaged due to hitting of a stone—Impugned finding of State Commission that respondent was entitled to recover repair charges from the opposite party—No, illegality found in impugned order—Interference with declined. (Paras 9 to 12)

Result: Appeal dismissed.

ORDER

C. Viswanath, Presiding Member.—The present Appeal has been filed against the order dated 06.12.2019 of the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Vijayawada (‘the State Commission’) in CC no. 21 of 2015.

2. IA no. 6935 of 2020 is an application for Condonation of Delay. According to the Registry, there is a delay of 260 days, though the Appellant has not mentioned any number in his application. The impugned order of the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Vijayawada is dated 06.12.2019. The order was received by the Counsel for the Appellant on 30.12.2019. As per the averments made in the application for Condonation of Delay, there was a delay in seeking legal advice and thereafter on 23.03.2020, lock down was declared. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo Moto Writ Petition no. 3 of 2020, vide its order dated 23.03.2020, has extended the time for filing any petitions/ applications/ suits/ appeals/ all other proceedings irrespective of the limitations prescribed under general law or special laws whether condonable or not with effect from 15.03.2020 till further order to be passed. In view of the above, the delay is condoned and IA No. 6935 of 2020 is allowed.

3. Case of the Complainant/ Respondent is that he has been carrying on agro industries business. A BMW M3 Coupe car bearing registration no. AP 13 R 0009, was purchased from M/s Hetero Labs Limited, Hyderabad for an amount of Rs.57,04,000/-. The Complainant took an Insurance Policy - “Private Car Enhancement Cover Policy” bearing no. 62060331120300003714 for a sum of Rs.58,80,000/- valid from 09.01.2013 to 08.01.2014, from the Appellant/ Opposite Party. On 16.02.2013, when the officials of the Company were proceeding to Bangalore from Hyderabad in the car, at Shamshabad, Ranga Reddy District, the car hit a stone in the middle of the road at 11.00 p m, resulting damage to the car. Immediately the Complainant took the car to the authorised workshop, M/s Kun Motoren, Khairatabad who found that the engine was damaged. The Complainant informed the Opposite Party about the said incident. Thereafter the Opposite Party appointed a Surveyor – Vijaya Surveyors and Assessors for inspection and assessment of the loss. The Surveyor inspected the car and permitted the Complainant to get the repairs carried out. The vehicle was repaired, including replacement of the engine and the car was made road worthy. The Complainant paid the entire repair charges of Rs.23,20,352/- to M/s Kun Motoren (Motors) Khairatabad, Hyderabad The Surveyor inspected the car again on 21.09.2013 and submitted his final report. The Opposite Party had appointed another Surveyor Shri A Chandrasekhara Rao in March or April 2014 to give his technical opinion on the damage and the admissibility of the claim. The Opposite Party repudiated the claim vide letter dated 25.02.2015, nearly after two years from the date of the accident. Thereafter the Complainant sought copy of the Surveyor Reports through RTI, which was duly supplied. Aggrieved by the repudiation of his claim complaint was filed before the State Commission for redressal of his grievances with the following prayer:

• To pay claim of the Complainant of Rs.35,22,866/- (Rs.23,20,245/- + Rs.12.02,621/-) with interest of 24% per annum from the date of the complaint till realisation;

• To award an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and suffering, and the OP 1 and 2 are liable to pay the same;

• To grant costs Rs.30,000/- for the complainant;

• To grant such further and other incidental relief’s as the Complainant be found entitled as deem just and proper.

4. The Opposite Party resisted the Complaint. The Opposite Party contended that the Complainant without giving information to them had given the car for repair, denying the opportunity to make an on the spot inspection of the accident. The Complainant gave intimation of the claim on 18.02.2013 to the Opposite Party. M/s Vijaya Surv

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top