ORDER

Dr. Sadhna Shanker, Member—The present two cross Appeals have been filed under Section 19 read with Section 21(a)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) assailing the Order dated 09.03.2016 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred to as “State Commission”), whereby the Complaint filed by the Respondent/Complainant was allowed.

2. Brief facts of the case as narrated by the Complainant in the Complaint are that he took an insurance Policy No. 2011-200502-14-1002862-01-000 for his car bearing registration No. CH-04J-5076 from the Opposite Party—Liberty Videocon General Insurance Company Limited which was effective for the period 28.02.2015 till 27.02.2016. The insured declared value (IDV) of the car was Rs. 22,68,000/-.

3. As per the complaint, on 23.08.2015 at about 3.00 am, when Mr. Ashwani Kumar was driving the vehicle on their way back to home, heavy rain and low visibility caused the Complainant’s car to become lodged in a waterlogged ditch in the middle of the road. The information about the said incident was promptly given to the Insurance Company. Subsequently, the driver and the Appellant’s Surveyor visited the accident site, and after completing a spot survey, the surveyor recommended for shifting the car to the authorized BMW service center i.e. Opposite Party No. 3. The Complainant also stated that a DDR of the incident was registered at the local police station. Following an assessment of the vehicle on 04.09.2015, Opposite Party No. 3 generated a repair estimate valuing it at Rs.22,13,220/-. The Insurance Company caused delays in the approval process and on 11.09.2015 requested additional documents for claim processing.

4. The Complainant submitted the claim application along with all required documents. The insurance company was causing delays in claim approval. After representation dated 28.10.2015, the Surveyor prepared a report on 29.10.2015. However, upon reviewing the report, the Complainant discovered that the Surveyor had not considered the actual estimate provided by Opposite Party No. 3. Following a request from the Complainant to re-evaluate the surveyor’s assessment, Mr. Mohit Sharma, the Surveyor issued an addendum survey report dated 06.11.2015 assessing an amount to Rs. 5,36,966/-. In the addendum survey report, the Surveyor did not confirm or reject the cost of the EXCH-Turbo, which was Rs. 1,42,347. The Surveyor stated that confirmation could only occur after dismantling of the car, despite the fact that Opposite Party No. 3 had already confirmed the defect in the Exch-Turbo in an email dated 03.09.2015 and the Surveyor was aware of this information. Additionally, the Surveyor did not approve a loss of Rs. 1,11,123/- for parts listed in the addendum report at Serial Numbers 1, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13.

5. On 02.11.2015, the Complainant received a letter from insurance company informing him that the licensing authority had been unable to verify the driver’s license. Additionally, it stated that the repair liability of the Insurance Company amounted to Rs.8,33,586/-. The Complainant was requested to have the vehicle repaired and submit the repair bills for further claim processing. However, the total repair estimate, according to the Surveyor’s assessment, was Rs. 18,62,602/-. This amount exceeded 75% of the Insured Declared Value (IDV) of the vehicle, and as a result, the vehicle was to be considered a constructive total loss, in accordance with the insurance policy’s conditions. The records held by the licensing authority pertaining to Mr. Ashwani Kumar’s driving license are currently unavailable, as they have been reported as missing. The licensing authority has taken the step of filing a First Information Report (FIR) regarding the loss of these records. The Complainant requested the Opposite Parties to re-assess their determination, as they argued that repairing the vehicle was not a rea