M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL FIRST APPEAL NO.2008 OF 2019 (Arising out of order dated 01.08.2019 passed in Case.No.303/2018 by District Commission, Guna)

GURUCHARAN SINGH, R/O H.NO.06-B, KRISHANA COLONY, YAMUNA NAGAR, HARYANA . … APPELLANT.

Versus .

. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, THROUGH DIVISIONAL MANAGER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE 2/2A, IIIRD FLOOR, LAXMI INSURANCE BUILDING, NEW DELHI . .… RESPONDENT.

BEFORE :

HON’BLE JUSTICE SMT.SUNITA YADAV, PRESIDENT HON’BLE DR. (MRS) MONIKA MALIK, MEMBER COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

Shri S.K. Saxena, learned counsel for the appellant.

Shri M.Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the respondent.

O R D E R (Passed on .01.2026)

The following order of the Commission was delivered by Dr.(Mrs) Monika Malik, Member :

This is an appeal by the complainant / appellant directed against the order dated 01.08.2019 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Guna (for short ‘District Commission’) in complaint case no. 303/2018, whereby the District Commission has allowed the complaint filed by him and has directed the opposite party – New India Assurance Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘Insurance Company’) to pay the claim amount of Rs.10,00,000/- to the complainant within a period of two months with interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of repudiation of claim i.e. 02.05.2018, till payment.

In addition cost of Rs.1,000/- is also awarded.

2. Heard.

3. Learned counsel for the complainant / appellant argued that on 22.01.2017 the subject vehicle got burnt regarding which police and the Insurance Company were intimated. Investigator was appointed by the Insurance Company but however, claim was denied vide letter dated 02.05.2018 on the ground that the Insured Declared Value (IDV) of Rs.14,85,000/- is more than the market value of the subject vehicle. He argued that though the Insurance Company has paid Rs.10,00,000/- as per the award of the District Commission but the complainant deserves entire insured declared value of Rs.14,85,000/-. Since the Insurance Company had issued the insurance policy mentioning the IDV as Rs.14,85,000/-, it cannot escape from liability regarding payment of the said amount. He therefore prayed that the impugned award be enhanced.

4. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the insurance policy was issued on the principle of utmost good faith. The complainant had mentioned an amount and the same was declared as IDV, whereas the fact was that the complainant’s vehicle was second hand and Rs.14,85,000/- could not be its IDV. It has rightly been observed by the District Commission also. He therefore prayed that the appeal be dismissed.

5. We find that the final survey report dated 22.03.2017 is available on record, where the Surveyor has done assessment of payable claim amount. The investigation report dated 12.12.2017 is also there for perusal of record, in which it is observed that the insured neither provided documentary proof of the purchase of the vehicle, nor informed about the purchase amount. Since the purchase amount was not available actual value of the vehicle could not be assessed. The Insurance Company had stated that the complainant obtained subject policy by misrepresentation. The District Commission therefore, relying on Surveyor’s report concluded that as the market value of the vehicle is assessed at Rs.10,00,000/- and the case is of total loss, the complainant be paid Rs.10,00,000/- with interest.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the matter, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the District Commission. The impugned order is hereby affirmed.

7. As a result, the appeal fails and is dismissed, with no order as to costs.

(Justice Smt.Sunita Yadav) [Dr.(Mrs)Monika Malik]

President Member Sangeeta APPEAL NO.2008/ 2019 GURUCHARAN SINGH VERSUS NEW INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED FOR CONSIDERATION DR.(MRS) MONIKA MALIK MEMBER HON’BLE PRESIDENT (JUSTICE SMT.S