The main legal principle established is that under a comprehensive insurance policy, damaged vehicle parts covered by the policy are entitled to compensation, while extra fittings not covered by the policy are not liable for compensation.

ORDER :

Noushad Ali, President

The opposite parties United India Insurance Company Ltd., have filed this appeal challenging the award passed against them, to pay a sun of Rs. 1,65,000 towards the claim of damaged vehicle of the respondent, Rs. 10,000 towards mental agony and costs of Rs. 3,000.

2. The vehicle of the respondent bearing registration No. AP 4 TT : 4568, which is a diesel tanker was covered by personal insurance policy valid from 21.11.2014 to 20.11.2015. The vehicle met with an accident on 28.8.2015 and sustained damage when the policy was in force. It is not in dispute that the respondent is entitled to claim the insurance amount under the policy. The appellants appointed an insurance surveyor and obtained assessment of damage at Rs. 43,600. The respondent was not inclined to receive the said amount since the repair of the vehicle costed him a sum of Rs. 1,68,190. Therefore, the respondent filed a complaint in question before the Forum. The Forum did not go into the question as to whether the quantum of amount claimed by the respondent was justified or whether the offer of Rs. 43,600 by the appellants was correct. However, the Forum passed an award to pay Rs. 1,65,000 in a slipshod manner only on the ground that the insurance was in force at the time of accident.

3. We have heard both the Counsel and perused the material on record. The accident is not in dispute and the damage of the vehicle is also not in dispute. The Counsel for the appellants also does not dispute the liability of the appellants to reimburse the damage under the insurance policy. The only contention advanced by the learned Counsel is that some of the items damaged in the accident were not covered by the policy. The contention is that the parts such as mudguard, side guard etc., are not covered by the policy, since the additional premium was not paid to cover the said items. Hence, the respondent is not entitled for the said items.

4. Counsel for the respondent argued that since the policy in question is a comprehensive policy, the appellants are liable to pay for all items.

5. We have examined the material on record. We find that as far as valet box, door locks, cabin material and safety stickering which are admittedly covered by the policy have been assessed by the surveyor. Parts such as manhole washer, manhole bolt, mudflap, electrical checkup and painting which were damaged as per Ex. Al invoice were not taken into consideration by the appellants, on the ground that the additional premium was not paid. However, we find that mudguard is a part of the vehicle and hence the same cannot be excluded from the coverage since the policy in question is a comprehensive policy. The other parts viz., manhole washer, manhole bolt, mudflap, electrical check up and painting are extra fittings as such the damage of the said parts are not liable to be compensated, since extra premium was not paid. Therefore, the mudguard value of Rs. 18,500 minus 25% depreciation which comes to Rs. 13,875 is liable to be paid. Therefore, we hold that the respondent is entitled for Rs. 55,287 in total as against Rs. 1,65,000 as awarded by the Forum or Rs. 41,412.50 as recommended by the surveyor.

6. We are not inclined to interfere with the compensation and costs awarded by the Form, since the respondent was compelled to fight litigation for the insurance amount.

7. For the foregoing reasons, we modify the order of the Forum and award a sum of Rs. 55,287 in place of Rs. 1,65,000 towards insurance amount and confirm the rest of the order. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs.