IMPORTANT POINT
Damage to insured vehicle in accident – Insurance company may not pay full cost of repair – They deduct specific amount based on depreciation, policy exclusions etc.

ORDER

Sunita Channabasappa Bagewadi, Member.—The Appellant/ Opposite Party preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the order dated 30.01.2015 passed in CC.No.133 / 2012 on the file of Dakshina Kannada District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mangalore.

2. The brief facts of the case are as under:—

The Complainant is the owner of the vehicle Mahindra Xylo BSIV which is insured on 08.10.2010 bearing policy No.MOT 01940959 with Opposite Party. Rs.2,11,763/ - towards the to indemnify the loss suffered by the Complainant. Aggrieved by the above said, the Complainant filed the Complaint before the District Commission.

3. After service of notice of the District Commission Opposite Party appeared through their counsel and filed version and admitted the policy. Further, contended that the claim for Compensation has to be assessed and settled as per actual practice and procedure and denied the deficiency in s ervice. Further, stated that as per clause No.9 of the IMT, the rubber and plastic parts only 50o/o of the value would be paid and not full amount.

4. After trial District Commission allowed the Complaint. Aggrieved by this order the appellant/ Opposite Party preferred this appeal.

5. Heard from appellant - In spite of sufficient opportunities have been granted, respondent not appeared before this Commission and not argued the matter.

6. Perused the appeal memo and order passed by the District Commission, we noticed that, it is not in dispute that the Complainant is the owner of the vehicle Mahindra Xylo BSIV bearing Reg.No.KA-01-MG-0382 and obtained the policy for the said vehicle bearing No. MOTOO l 940959 for the sum of Rs.8,25,545/-. It is also not in dispute that the said vehicle met with an accident and the Complainant repaired the same by paying an amount Rs.2,11,763/ -. It is also not in dispute that after intimation the appellant appointed the surveyor and assessed the loss. It is also not in dispute that as per the survey report the appellant settled the claim of the respondent.

7. The contention of the appellant in appeal memorandum and also before the lower court is that after consideration, the report of the surveyor the appellant had settled the claim of the respondent as per the terms and conditions of the policy. The appellant rightly paid the amount of Rs.1,15,422/ - to the respondent which is eligible claim amount as per the survey report and which is the full and final settlement. Hence, the respondent is not entitled for the any Balance amount.

8. Perused the order passed by the District Commission we noticed that the District Commission held that, since the vehicle is insured under comprehension policy. Hence, appellant is bound to indemnify the insured to full tune of loss spent by the respondent towards the vehicle repair along with tow charges. However, appellant has appointed the surveyor and he has assessed the loss for the tune of Rs.l,15,442 / - if surveyor assessed the loss, this commission cannot direct the appellant to pay the entire amount to the respondent because, surveyor report is prepared by qualified person and it is a crucial document. Further, though the policy 1s the comprehension policy, as per the policy terms and conditions, insurance company can deduct certain amount from claim settlement and this deduction are standard practices. Insurance company may not pay Full cost of repair they deduct specific amount based on depreciation, policy exclusions etc. Moreover, inspite of sufficient opportunities has been granted respondent not appeared and argued the matter and convinced this commission how he is entitled for the full amount spent by him towards the repair of the vehicle. As such, considering the facts and discussion made here, we are of the op1n10n that the order passed by the District Commission is not just and proper. As the appellant had settled the claim as per the surveyor’s report before filing of the complaint. Hence, interference is required. Accordingly, we proceed