IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION Date of Institution: 28.10.2016 Date of hearing: 25.03.2022 Date of Decision: 26.04.2022 FIRST APPEAL NO.- 508/2016 IN THE MATTER OF NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE-2

2E/9, JHANDAWALAN, KAROL BAGH, DELHI (Through: Mr. Vikas Shokeen, Advocate)

…Appellant VERSUS SH. ARVIND KUMAR R/O- B-212, GAZIPUR VILLAGE, DELHI- 110092 (Through: Respondent in person)

…Respondent CORAM:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)

HON’BLE SH. RAJAN SHARMA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Present: None for the parties.

PER: HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, PRESIDENT JUDGMENT

1. The facts of the case necessary as per the District Forum record are:

“The complainant has been filed by the complainant to claim sum assured amount under policy in accident case which was denied by OP. Complainant was owner of Maruti EECO vehicle vide registration no. DL1T-7801. The said vehicle was insured with OP vide policy no. 35101031126331861086 from 25/08/2012 to 24/08/2013 for a sum of Rs 2,73,570/-. On 24/06/2013, the said vehicle got damaged while it was parked at the side of road and the complainant was attending his natural call. He immediately called crane service who towed the accidented vehicle to OP's authorized service centre at Bagga Link service centre at Delhi. Complainant also intimated OP the damage of his vehicle on the same day. At service centre, the said vehicle was in total loss stage and it could not be serviced. The said vehicle was still with the service station.”

2. The District Forum after taking into consideration the material available on record passed the order dated 22.07.2016, whereby it held as under:

“By going through all the contentions and evidences on record, it is clear that the said vehicle was insured with OP and OP has also accepted the same. It is also accepted and facts on record that accident had occurred without the negligence of owner/complainant as the said vehicle was parked at the side of the road and was hit by some unknown vehicle and immediately service centre was informed and police report was also done. The accidented vehicle was towed by OP's authorized service station through its own crane. OP's appointed surveyor report was also on record. Now we have to see whether total loss of vehicle, due to accident, to be paid by OP under valid policy or could be denied by taking shelter of Subsiquential loss / damages. We have gone through some of citations as: 1- United India Insurance Co Ltd vs Mohammed Jakir Hussain II(2014)CPJ 235 NC, decided on 28/03/2014. It was observed that vehicle had total loss and was insured. OP appointed surveyor and assessed the loss. Claim was repudiated. Complainant alleged deficiency in services of OP. District Forum allowed the complaint but State Commission dismissed the appeal. Hence in Revision Petition before National Commission, it was observed that vehicle inspector has stated in his report that vehicle could not be repaired. District Forum rightly allowed claim on Total Loss. Impugned order was upheld. 2- Vishnu Singh vs IFFCI TOKIO General Insurance Co. & others - III(2014)CPJ546-NC-decided on 01/08/2014. It was observed that Insured vehicle had total loss and surveyor was appointed by OP and claim was repudiated. Complainant alleged deficiency of OP in their service. District Fora allowed the complaint and State Commission also allowed the appeal. Under revision before National Commission, vehicle was badly damaged and was beyond repair. Here. report of mechanic is not necessary. Compensation was awarded to the tune of IDV along with 6% interest from the date of accident. 3- Chaitanya Prasad & others vs National Insurance Co Ltd. -IV(2013) CPJ 417-NC- Decided on 10/10/2013. It was observed that total loss of vehicle in accident, complainant is entitled to get compensation based on the IDV of vehicle. Taking reference of above citations, it is clear that total loss of vehicle in accident, OP cannot take shelter on flims