Back
MADHYA PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL
Monika Malik, Member
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Sheshrao Wankhede - Respondent
First Appeal No. 04 of 2016
Decided On : 20-09-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Ravindra Tiwari, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. G. Karamveer, Advocate.
The repair cost of a vehicle exceeding 75% of its IDV indicates that the vehicle is not in a repairable condition, justifying the award of IDV to the complainant.
Headnote:
Insurance - Vehicle Insurance - IDV Claim - The court affirmed the award of IDV of the vehicle to the complainant after finding that the repair cost of the vehicle exceeded 75% of its IDV, indicating that the vehicle was not in a repairable condition. The opposite party's argument that the vehicle was repairable was dismissed based on the evidence presented by the complainant.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant's vehicle was insured under comprehensive risk, and after it met with an accident, the opposite party denied the IDV claim on the grounds that the vehicle was repairable.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the repair cost of the vehicle exceeded 75% of its IDV, indicating that the vehicle was not in a repairable condition. The court affirmed the award of IDV of the vehicle to the complainant and directed the complainant to hand over the damaged vehicle to the insurance company.
Issues: Dispute over the IDV claim for a damaged vehicle under comprehensive risk insurance.
Ratio Decidendi: The repair cost of the vehicle exceeding 75% of its IDV indicates that the vehicle is not in a repairable condition, justifying the award of IDV to the complainant.
Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed, affirming the award of IDV to the complainant and directing the complainant to hand over the damaged vehicle to the insurance company.
ORDER :
Dr. Monika Malik, Member
This appeal is by the opposite party /appellant, against the order dated 30.11.2015, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chhindwara in C.C. No. 82/2015, whereby the complaint filed against them has been allowed.
2. Briefly put, the facts of the case are that the complainant’s/respondent’s vehicle-Chevrolet Spark Car, bearing registration No. MP-28 C-2879 was insured under comprehensive risk, by the opposite party/appellant-Insurance Company for a period from 26.11.2013 to 25.11.2014. The sum assured under the policy was Rs. 1,80,000. The said vehicle met with an accident on 5.8.2014, regarding which the complainant had informed the opposite party, who conducted survey of the vehicle. The complainant subsequently filed a claim with the opposite party claiming IDV of the vehicle, since the vehicle was severely damaged. The opposite party denied him IDV on the ground that the vehicle is in a repairable state and not in a category of ‘total loss’.
3. The complainant subsequently filed a complaint before the District Forum. The District Forum vide impugned order, awarded IDV of the insured vehicle i.e. Rs. 1,80,000 to the complainant to be paid within a month of the order, failing which the amount shall carry an interest @ 9% p.a. Rs. 5,000 as compensation and Rs. 2,000 as litigation costs was also awarded to the complainant. Hence this appeal.
4. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the record.
5. Learned Counsel for opposite party/appellant argued that the complainant’s/respondent’s vehicle was in repairable condition. Same has been mentioned in the survey report dated 1.10.2014 prepared by Shri Rajiv Upadhyay, Surveyor & Loss Assessor, wherein the net liability on repair basis is assessed as Rs. 1,15,733 and the liability without deducting the salvage value was assessed as Rs. 1,26,174 . He argued that the complainant should have got the vehicle repaired and his claim could have been settled. However, the complainant/respondent demanded the entire IDV of the vehicle, which is not payable. Therefore, the opposite party/appellant vide letter dated 13.11.2014 have denied the complainant’s claim.
6. Learned Counsel for complainant/respondent argued that photographs of the vehicle reveal that the vehicle is beyond repairs. The repair cost of the vehicle would exceed 75% of its IDV. On this basis, the complainant/respondent deserves IDV of the vehicle. The survey report presented by the opposite party is not supported with an affidavit of the surveyor. Moreover, the report was prepared, two months after the occurrence of accident. He argued that body and engine of the vehicle are completely damaged and the vehicle is not in a repairable condition. However, the opposite party/appellant can recover losses, by obtaining salvage of the damaged vehicle.
7. I observe that the complainant/respondent has placed on record the repair estimate of the vehicle which is exceeding the IDV of the vehicle. The complainant/respondent has referred to an estimate prepared by Shri Jitendra Baghel on 2.8.2015 (accompanied with an affidavit), wherein the total repair cost of the vehicle is mentioned as Rs. 3,31,590. However, the opposite party/appellant has stated that this report is not acceptable and has referred to a survey report prepared by Shri Rajiv Upadhyay, Surveyor & Loss Assessor, dated 1.10.2014. Even if I go by the submission of the opposite party/appellant, I observe that the net liablity on repair basis in the survey report referred by the opposite party/appellant is stated as Rs. 1,15,733 . Liability on repair basis, without deducting the salvage value is referred as Rs. 1,26,174. It is further accompanied by a statement that “this liability may increase during actual course of repair”. It has been further stated that “WITH NEW BODY SHELL Liability on Repair Basis is Rs. 1,56,174” i.e. more than 75% of the IDV of the vehicle. This survey report itself points towards possibility of repa
