IMPORTANT POINT
Reinstatement value of the goods - If in the Insurance Policy the Insured has to get the reinstatement value of the goods and not the depreciated value, then the Insurance Company has to pay the reinstatement value of the goods to the Insured.

ORDER

The present Revision Petitions have been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, challenging the Impugned Order dated 15.05.2017 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as State Commission) in Appeal Nos. 614 & 615 of 2013, whereby the State Commission by setting aside the Order dated 22.05.2013 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhilwara (for short “the District Forum”) dismissing the Complaint Nos. 163 & 164 / 2012 filed by the Complainant, allowed the Appeals filed by the Complainant by directing the Opposite Party Oriental Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Respondent Insurance Company) to pay the loss assessed by the Surveyor to Complainant within 30 days.

2. Brief facts of the case as mentioned in Complaint No. 163 / 2012 are that the Complainant obtained GCCV Public Carriers Other than Three Wheelers Package Policy No. 242400/31/2011/5618 for Vehicle bearing Registration No. RJ-06-GB-2781 from the Respondent Insurance Company for IDV value of Rs.20,00,000/-. During the currency of the Policy, vehicle met with an accident. Insurance Company was informed, who appointed spot surveyor. According to the directions of the Respondent Insurance Company the vehicle was taken for repairs to Mumal Motors. The Complainant paid a sum of Rs.6,14,025/- towards repair of the Vehicle. Bill was submitted to the Respondent Insurance Company for reimbursement of the Claim. Although the Surveyor appointed by the Respondent Insurance Company assessed the loss at Rs.3,92,205/- yet the Respondent Insurance Company did not settle the claim. Being aggrieved Complainant filed Complaint No. 163/2012 before the District Forum.

3. In Complaint No. 164 / 2012, the Complainant obtained GCCV Public Carriers Other than Three Wheelers Package Policy No. 242400/31/2011/7030 for vehicle bearing registration No. RJ-06-GA-3661 from the Respondent Insurance Company for IDV value of Rs.13,00,000/-. During the currency of the Policy, vehicle met with an accident. Insurance Company was informed, who appointed Spot Surveyor. According to the directions of the Respondent Insurance Company the vehicle was taken for repairs to Lotus India Auto Services. The Complainant incurred an expenditure of Rs.5,48,007/- towards repairing and crane service etc. Bills were submitted to the Respondent Insurance Company for reimbursement of the claim. Although the Surveyor appointed by the Respondent Insurance Company assessed the loss at Rs.4,90,149/- yet the Respondent Insurance Company did not settle the claim on the ground that the driving licence of the Driver provided by the Complainant was fake one. Feeling aggrieved the Complainant filed Complaint No. 164/2012 before the District Forum.

4. The Respondent Insurance Company contested the Complaints before the District Forum. In reply to Complaint No. 163/2012, it was submitted that after processing the claim, the loss payable was Rs.3,88,000/-. They directed the Complainant to submit the necessary documents for payment of the claimed amount but before that Complainant had filed the Complaint before the District Forum. In reply to Complaint No. 164/2012, it was submitted that initially driving licence No. 2557 / 91 issued by Licensing Authority, Jaunpur, UP was provided by the Complainant, which was found fake one. After that in order to get his claim settled, the Complainant provided another driving licence issued by Licensing Authority, Hardoi, UP. Although the second licence was found genuine yet it is not legal and valid because date of birth in both the licenses is different. It cannot be possible that same driver have two dates of birth, and had obtained two driving licence from two different Licensing Authorities at the same time which is a clear violation of Section 6 of Motor vehicles Act. Accordingly, the driver was not having valid driving licence at the time of accident, therefore,