Back
GOA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PANAJI
N.A. BRITTO, PRESIDENT, VIDHYA R. GURAV, MEMBER
New India Assurance Company Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Maria Laura Xavier - Respondent
F.A. No. 49 of 2013
Decided on : 20-09-2013
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. B.V. Sukhthankar, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. M. Menezes, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle of estoppel, which prevents the insurer from disputing the value of the insured vehicle after accepting the estimated value and premium.
Headnote:
C.P. Act - Insurance Claim - India Motor Tariff - [15 of the C.P. Act, 1986] - [India Motor Tariff, Clause on repair, reinstate or replace the Motor car] - The court discussed the Insurance policy clause, the surveyor's report, and the principle that the insurer cannot dispute the value of the insured vehicle as given in the policy of Insurance after accepting the value and premium. The court emphasized the importance of the surveyor's report and the need for it to be specifically agreed or rebutted. The court also highlighted the principle of estoppel, stating that the insurer, having accepted the estimated value and premium, is estopped from contending a lower value. The court dismissed the appeal and imposed exemplary costs on the appellant.
Fact of the Case:
The widow of a deceased advocate filed a complaint against an insurance company for an insurance claim related to a car accident. The insurance policy had a clause regarding repair, reinstatement, or replacement of the car. The complainant sought compensation for the car, personal accident cover benefits, death of the driver, and garage charges.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the insurer, having accepted the estimated value and premium, is estopped from disputing the value of the insured vehicle. The court also noted the importance of the surveyor's report and the need for it to be specifically agreed or rebutted. The court dismissed the appeal and imposed exemplary costs on the appellant.
Issues: The issues included the interpretation of the insurance policy clause, the assessment of the surveyor's report, and the principle of estoppel regarding the value of the insured vehicle.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the principle of estoppel, stating that the insurer, having accepted the estimated value and premium, is estopped from contending a lower value. The court also highlighted the importance of the surveyor's report and the need for it to be specifically agreed or rebutted.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and imposed exemplary costs on the appellant.
ORDER :
Mr. Justice N.A. Britto, President
The complaint filed on 9.10.2002 is partly allowed by the District Forum by order dated 12.6.2013, after more than a decade, when it ought to have been disposed off within 3/5 months or so, and the OP in the said complaint being aggrieved by the said order has filed this appeal on 9.7.2013 under section 15 of the C.P. Act, 1986 and the same is being disposed off today.
2. The parties to this appeal are being referred to in the names as they appear in the cause title of the complaint.
3. The Complainant is a widow of late advocate Shri Caetano Xavier who had purchased a Premier 118 NE car on 31.10.1990 for a sum of Rs. 2,03,000/- and had insured the same with the OP and the Insurance Policy was renewed from year to year and lastly it was renewed for a period of one year from 31.10.2000 for Rs. 2,03,000/-, which was then known as estimated value of the vehicle and now known as IDV. The Complainant had paid corresponding premium on the said estimated value of Rs.1,964/- including additional premium for P.A. cover and for death of driver benefits other than paid driver.
4. On the midnight of 10th August, 2001 whilst the said policy was in force, the late advocate Caetano Xavier met with an accident along with the said car with a parked truck owned by Virupa Xappa Jawali and insured with National Insurance Co. Ltd. in which Adv. Shri Caetano Xavier died and the car was badly damaged and mutilated. At the request of the Complainant the car was taken to the garage of Ruben Baretto Miranda of B M Service on 19.8.2001 and it was inspected on 26.10.2001 by Shri V.N. Pal, a Surveyor/ Loss Assessor and Valuer who assessed the liability of the OP on all 3 modes of settlement, namely on repair basis for Rs. 93,751/-, on cash loss basis for Rs.65,577/- and total loss basis for Rs.30,000/-. The car was eventually sold by the said B M Service after notice to the OP for a sum of Rs.4,000/- on 30.6.2011.
5. The Complainant informed the OP by letter dated 24.9.2001 and registered her claim. By another letter dated 25.9.2001 the Complainant forwarded various documents to the OP and by another letter dated 28.9.2001 requested the OP to settle the claim towards the death of driver other than paid driver for Rs. 20,000/-.
5.1 By letter dated 21.12.2001 the OP sought from the Complainant certain documents including the post mortem report and succession certificate and also a consent letter for settlement of the claim on total loss basis for Rs.35,000/-. The Complainant by another letter dated 5.1.2002 addressed to the OP reminded the OP that she had forwarded her claim form about 3 months back. She also stated that the vehicle was insured for Rs.2,06,000/- (infact it was insured for Rs.2,03,000/-) and she was paying exorbitant premium regularly. She also stated that without prejudice to her rights to claim further amount she would accept Rs.35,000/- under protest. By letter dated 10.1.2002 the OP informed the Complainant that they could not consider payment under protest as it always had to be by way of full and final settlement. The Complainant by letter dated 23.3.2002 requested for a copy of Surveyor’s report and by another letter dated 21.5.2002 sought to know from the OP what document they would accept in place of succession certificate and for how long the vehicle was to be kept at the said B. M. Service Station and who would be liable to pay the charges thereof. The Complainant also sought to know the position about the payment of personal accident cover benefits for which necessary application duly signed by her was submitted to them. Complainant also conveyed to the OP that she was prepared to settle the claim for Rs.1,50,000/-. The Complainant got a terse reply dated 29.5.2002 stating that they were unable to settle the claim because she had not given her consent for settlement of the claim on total loss basis and that the vehicle had to be kept in her safe custody till the settlement of the claim and the
