Allahabad High Court
Shriram General Insurance Ltd. Jaipur ... vs Rajesh Jaiswal And Another on 11 May, 2023
Author: Rajnish Kumar
Bench: Rajnish Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:32445 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3637 of 2023 Petitioner :- Shriram General Insurance Ltd. Jaipur Thru. Manager Legal Office,Lucknow Respondent :- Rajesh Jaiswal And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Dinesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- Dhruv Kumar Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J.
1. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the petitioner is taken on record.
2. Heard Shri Dinesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Dhruv Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent no.1. Respondent no.2 is the surveyor of the petitioner insurance company to whom no notice is required to be issued.
3. This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 25.04.2022 passed in PLA Case No.27 of 2017; Rajesh Jaiswal Vs. Shriram General Insurance Company Limited and Another by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Faizabad by means of which the claim of the respondent no.2 has been partly allowed and the petitioner has been directed to pay an amount of Rs.14,50,000/- towards the damages and Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation within 90 days. It has further been provided that in case of non compliance of the order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, the petitioner shall also pay interest at the rate of 6% upto the date of actual payment to the respondent no.2.
4. The sole argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the claim of the respondent no.2 has been allowed as a case of total loss of vehicle and the sum assured (IDV) has been directed to be paid to the respondent no.2 but no direction has been issued in regard to the salvage of the vehicle, whereas as per the terms and conditions of the policy in case of total loss of vehicle the insurance company is entitled for the salvage of the vehicle or an amount equal to that.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 submits that the salvage is with the respondent no.2 and he is ready to hand it over to the insurance company. He further submits that the claim of the petitioner has rightly been allowed in accordance with law because the assessed value of the loss of vehicle was more than 75%, therefore it is a case of total loss and the petitioner is entitled for the sum assured (IDV) without any deduction.
6. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record, it is apparent that the vehicle of the respondent no.2 bearing registration no.U.P.-43-T-9394 (Tata Truck LPS 4018 TC BS-II) was insured with the petitioner insurance company. The sum assured i.e. IDV of the vehicle was Rs.14,50,000/-. It was valid w.e.f. 28.07.2015 to 27.07.2016. The vehicle met with an accident on 03.05.2016. Estimate of repair of the vehicle was given by the authorized service center Prayag Udyog Pvt. Ltd., Faizabad on 13.05.2016. As per the estimate for repair of vehicle, the total cost of parts was Rs.14,36,980/- and the cost of labour 4,03,650/-, total amounting to Rs.18,40,630/-. The petitioner insurance company got a survey of the vehicle done. The surveyor of the petitioner company allowed cost of parts to the tune of Rs.4,63,210.80 only but no reason was given as to why cost of all the parts has not been given. The petitioner filed a claim petition before the Permanent Lok Adalat. The Permanent Lok Adalat, after considering the pleadings and the evidence on record, found that the surveyor of the petitioner has not given any explanation of the parts, which have not been allowed, which were required to be repaired as per the authorized service center, therefore the surveyor report of the petitioner is not acceptable.
7. Admittedly, as per the terms and conditions of the policy, the insured vehicle is to be treated as s CTL (Constructive Total Loss) if the aggregate cost of retrieval and / or repair of the vehicle, subject to terms and conditions of the policy, exceeds 75% of the IDV of the vehicle. As per the terms and conditions of the policy, IDV will be treated as the 'Market Value' throughout the policy period without any further depreciation for the purpose of Total Loss (TL) / Constructive Total Loss (CTL) claims. Therefore, no deduction can be made from the IDV of the vehicle in case of total loss. Therefore since the total aggregate cost of repair was more than 75% of IDV, the Permanent Lok Adalat has treated it as a total loss and allowed the IDV of the vehicle. However as per the terms and conditions of the policy the liability of the petitioner insurance company shall not exceed for total loss / constructive total loss of the vehicle the insured's IDV of the vehicle (including accessories thereon) as specified in schedule less the value of the wreck but the Permanent Lok Adalat has not allowed the wreck (salvage) or value of the salvage for which the learned counsel for the respondent no.2 has given his consent that he is ready to give it to the insurance company.
8. In view of above, the judgment and order dated 25.04.2022 passed in PLA Case No.27 of 2017; Rajesh Jaiswal Vs. Shriram General Insurance Company Limited and Another passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Faizabad is modified to the extent that the salvage of the vehicle shall be handed over by the respondent no.2 to the petitioner insurance company within a period of one month from today and within four weeks thereafter the payment of the total amount of the award shall be made to the respondent no.2, failing which the respondent no.2 shall be entitled for interest as determined by the Permanent Lok Adalat, which shall also be paid by the petitioner.
9. With the aforesaid, the writ petition is disposed of.
...................................................................(Rajnish Kumar, J.) Order Date :- 11.5.2023 Haseen U.