An insurance company is guilty of deficiency in service if it fails to pay the full Insured Declared Value (IDV) when evidence, including the insurer's own assessments, indicates the vehicle is a total loss due to massive damage.

JUDGMENT

1. In the present case, along with appeal, the appellant has also filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

2. It has been submitted by the appellant that the certified copy of impugned order dated 25.07.2016 was received at its Mumbai office on 27.07.2016. Thereafter, some time was consumed in sending the certified copy of impugned order to Delhi office, tracing the original claim file and engaging counsel. Due to these procedural steps, a delay of about 48 days occurred in filing the present appeal.

3. The delay in filing the appeal was condoned vide order 03.09.2017, subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/-. The said cost was paid to the respondent on 25.04.2017.

4. By this judgement, we shall dispose of the appeal filed by the Appellant against the impugned order dated 25.07.2016, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-X, Udyog Sadan, C-22& 23 Qutab Institutional Area, Behind Qutab Hotel, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as District Commission), in Complaint Case no. 351/2012 titled as Ranbir Singh Vs. TATA AIG Gen. Ins. Co.

5. While the Appellant was Opposite Party before the District Commission and the Respondents was Complainant before the District Commission.

6. The facts of the case as per the District Commission-X, record are as under:

“The case of the complainant is that his Mahindra Scorpio car was duly insured with OP for the period 22.03.2011 to 21.03.2012 for IDV of Rs.8,54,100/-, On 12.03.2012 the said car met with an accident and was almost totally damaged. On the same day information was sent regarding this on toll free helpline number of OP regarding the claim and he received the claim number 620450057. On 13.03.2012 complainant handed over possession of the above said car to authorized service station from Mahindra ie. Bhasin Motors at Sarita Vihar, Delhi. On 15.03.2012 the vehicle of the complainant was surveyed by the surveyor of OP and surveyor told the complainant that the vehicle is totally damaged. After 15.03.2012 complainant visited OP company but no one told him about the estimated amount which he has to pay for getting his vehicle repaired. Complainant received a call car from the scrap dealer and he made an offer to purchase the above said vehicle at Rs.4,50,000/- and in fact his telephone number was given to the scrap dealer by OP only. OP made an offer of Rs 2,50,000/- to the complainant plus the amount of Rs.4,50,000/- of scrap dealer. It is further stated that on 09.05.2012, nephew of the complainant received an email from OP company official ie. Rajiv Kaushik regarding the claim bearing number 620450057 in which he said "with reference to our meeting and telephonic conversation held with you, we would like to confirm you again that the subject claim is being settled on the basis cash loss basis. Our liability in the subject claim will be Rs.2,50,000/- subject to the submission of the documents like NOC form Bank and KYC of insured. Complainant received a set back and was surprised to see that OP company was accepting their liability up to Rs.2,50,000/-, however, the insured value of the vehicle is Rs.8,54,100/- It is further stated that complainant till today is roaming here and there. from one pillar to another for getting his claim amount but no one from OP is paying heed to the efforts made by the complainant and Bhasin Motors is saying that they will charge Rs.500/- per day as parking charges for the vehicle