SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

UTTARAKHAND STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, DEHRADUN
Kumkum Rani and B.S. Manral, Member
Tata AIG General Insurance
Company Limited – Appellant
versus
Ghanshyam Agarwal – Respondent
SC/5/A/215/2019
Decided on 8.5.2025

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Sh. Suresh Gautam, Advocate
For the Respondent:Sh. Amit Agarwal, Advocate

IMPORTANT POINT
Accident of insured vehicle – In case of total loss insurance claim is to be settled on total loss basis and not on IDV.

Headnote:

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 19 [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 51] – Insurance – Accident of insured vehicle – Present case falls under category of total loss and claim is to be settled on total loss basis – District Commission has awarded IDV of vehicle, but has not deducted any amount towards salvage of vehicle, nor has directed complainant to hand over salvage of vehicle to insurance company – There should be deduction of 20% from IDV of vehicle towards salvage value with R.C. and after deducting 20% amount, complainant is entitled to get sum of Rs.12,96,727/- (Rs. 16,20,909/- minus Rs.3,24,182/-) – Amount awarded by District Commission towards claim amount is liable to be reduced from Rs.16,20,909/- to Rs.12,96,727/-, alongwith 7% interest – Litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/- awarded by District Commission are quite justified. (Paras 8 and 9)

Result: Appeal partly allowed.

ORDER

Kumkum Rani, President—This appeal has been directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 30.04.2019 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dehradun (hereinafter to be referred as “The District Commission”) in consumer complaint No.308 of 2014, styled as Sh. Ghanshyam Agarwal Vs. Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited and others, wherein and whereby the consumer complaint was allowed, directing the appellant / opposite parties to pay Rs.16,20,909/- to the respondent / complainant towards claim amount; Rs.20,000/- towards parking charges; Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses, within a period of 30 days’, failing which the respondent / complainant was further held entitled to interest @9% p.a. on the aforesaid sum from the date of filing of the consumer complaint till payment.

2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, in brief, are, as such that the respondent / complainant is the registered owner of vehicle No.UK09-A-1345, which was insured with the appellant – insurance company vide policy No.010075458400 for the period from 23.3.2013 to 22.03.2014 at an IDV of Rs.16,20,909/-. It was alleged in the consumer complaint that the insured vehicle met with an accident on dated 22.02.2014 at Sardhana Chowk, Meerut and the vehicle was totally damaged. The vehicle was towed to SJS Cars Pvt. Ltd., Meerut, where its repair cost was assessed to the tune of Rs.22,07,705/-. The information about the accident was immediately given to the insurance company. The insurance company deputed its surveyor, who inspected the insured vehicle in the garage on 03.03.2014 and prepared the report without any basis, whereby the surveyor assessed the amount of Rs.7,24,249/- as payable to the complainant. The surveyor – Sh. Arvind Kumar vide his letter dated 16.05.2014 informed the complainant that the dealership of the repairer has been cancelled, therefore, the vehicle be shifted to another dealer. Thereafter, the complainant towed the vehicle to SLO Automobile Pvt. Ltd., Dehradun. The officials of the insurance company also made survey of the vehicle in the garage and orally informed the complainant that the repairing company will inform the insurance company about the approximate repair expenses of the vehicle. Thereupon, the said repairing company prepared the estimate of repairs to the tune of Rs.23,59,500/-. The insurance company made an offer to the complainant for settlement of claim for Rs.12,00,000/-, but the said offer was not accepted by the complainant. Thereafter, the insurance company again deputed surveyor, who inspected the vehicle and submitted the report like the report submitted by the earlier surveyor. As per the said survey report, when the correspondence was made with Volkswagen Company, the said company informed that the manner in which the vehicle is told to be repaired, the manufacturing company would not be liable in running, safety and technical defect in the vehicle. The complainant several times requested the insurance company to settle the claim, but the officials of the insurance company always assured to settle the claim within few days’. When the claim was not settled till 8 months’, the complainant sent a legal notice dated 19.09.2014 to the insurance company, but inspite of service of the notice, the insurance company neither paid the IDV of the vehicle, nor informed as to when the payment would be made to the complainant. Therefore, the complainant had brought the consumer complaint before the District Commission for the reliefs mentioned in the bottom of the consumer complaint.

3. The appellant/opposite parties filed written statement before the District Commission, admitting the insurance of the subject vehicle for the period from 23.03.2013 to 22.03.2014. It was also stated that any loss is payable subject to the terms and conditions of the policy and loss assessed by IRDA licensed surveyor. After receiving the intimation of the ac

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top