State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Reliance General Insurance vs .Dr.P.S.Pramod, on 22 February, 2014
Daily Order
Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Vazhuthacaud,Thiruvananthapuram First Appeal No. A/13/55 (Arisen out of Order Dated 27/09/2012 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/12/70 of District Palakkad) 1. RELIANCE GENERALINSURANCE COMPANY K.P.VALLOM ROD,KADAVANTHRA,COCHIN ERNAKULAM KERALA ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Dr.P.S.PRAMOD JUNIOR CONSULTANT TALUK HOSPITAL,THODUPUZHA,IDUKKI IDUKKI KERALA ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: SMT.A.RADHA PRESIDING MEMBER SMT.SANTHAMMA THOMAS MEMBER PRESENT: ORDER
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SISUVIHARLANE VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL NUMBER 55/2013
JUDGMENT DATED : 22.02.2014
( Apepal filed against the order in CC.No.70/2012 on the file of CDRF, Idukki order dated : 27.09.2012)
PRESENT
SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SRI.V.V.JOSE : MEMBER
1. The Manager,
Reliance General Insurance
Company Ltd,
K.P.Vallom Road,
Kadavanthara, APPELLANTS
Cochin
2. The Branch Manager,
Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd,
Thodupuzha Branch,
Thodupuzha.P.O. Idukki
(By Adv.Sreevaraham G.Satheesh, TVPM)
Vs.
1.Dr.P.S.Pramod,
Junior Consultant,
Taluk Hospital, RESPONDENTS
Thodupuzha,
Thodupuzha.P.O
Idukki - 685583
2. The Manager,
Vision Motors Pvt.Ltd, RESPONDENTS
Nattakom.P.O
Kottayam
(By R1 by Adv.Sri.P.Rajmoham, TVPM)
(By R2 by Adv.Smt.R.Suja Madhav, TVPM)
JUDGMENT
SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER Appellants were opposite parties 1 & 2 in CC.No.70/2012 in the CDRF, Idukki. The first respondent in this appeal was the sole complainant. He alleged that he had purchased a new Honda city car on 06.04.2011 bearing Reg.No.KL-16G-4552. The vehicle was duly insured with opposite parties 1 & 2 for the period from 06.04.2011 to 05.04.2012. It was a private car package policy. The insurance premium for the vehicle was Rs.16,538/- and the vehicle was insured for an amount of Rs.8,81,790/-. When the policy was in force the vehicle met with a major accident at Kottayam on 30.11.2011 at 11 pm. The matter was informed to the nearest police station and to opposite parties 1 & 2. At the instruction of opposite parties 1 & 2 the vehicle was entrusted with the third opposite party for repair. They prepared an estimate for repair for an amount of Rs.707917/- and forwarded the estimate to the first opposite party. The complainant heard that a surveyor had examined the vehicle on 03.12.2011. On the advice of the first opposite party, the complainant approached the second opposite party for settling the claim. He also contacted the third opposite party but till the filing of the complaint the vehicle is kept idle. No decision is taken by opposite parties 1 & 2 on the claim application of the complainant. The vehicle was completely damaged in the accident and the amount required for repairs would be nearly the insured value. So the complainant is entitled to get the vehicle replaced or to get the insured value. There was no response from opposite parties 1 & 2 despite notice sent by the complainant through his advocate. He had to spend Rs.700/- per day for hiring a vehicle for travel, he being a doctor The complainant claimed the insured amount and compensation of Rs.60,000/- together with the costs of the petition.
2. Opposite parties 1 & 2 filed joint version and third opposite party filed seperate version before the District Consumer Forum. Opposite parties 1 & 2 admitted that the vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-16G-4552 was insured with the first opposite party as per a package policy for the period from 06.04.2011 to 05.04.2012 in the name of the complainant. They also admitted the accident on 30.11.2011. The complainant submitted claim form and estimate issued by the third opposite party for repairs. On receipt of the claim opposite parties 1 & 2 deputed a licenced surveyor to assess the damage sustained to the vehicle. The loss or damage to a vehicle can be assessed on repair basis, on total loss basis or on salvage loss basis. As per the policy condition opposite parties 1 & 2 have the liberty to opt any of those types of settlement. On the basis of the estimate submitted by third opposite party and the inspection of the surveyor the latter assessed total cost of parts inclusive of taxes after deducting depreciation and total labour charges to repair the vehicle at Rs.3,98,154/- and Rs.65,187/- respectively. The surveyor assessed the minimum liability of the insurer on repair basis after deducting salvage value at Rs.4,11,942.26/- The said amount was assessed as the amount payable under the policy. The insured declared value of the vehicle was Rs.8,89,790/-. The damage to a vehicle is treated on constructive total loss basis if the aggregate cost of repair of the vehicle exceeds 75% of the insured declared value of the vehicle. In this case, the loss assessed by the surveyor was less than 75% of the IDV. Hence the recommendation to settle the claim on repair basis. Hence opposite parties 1 & 2 are bound to pay only Rs.4,11,942.26/- as per the policy to repair the vehicle. The matter was intimated to the complainant but he wanted to settle the claim on total loss basis. Repair of the vehicle was not done because the complainant never gave permission to the third opposite party to start repair. The complainant is not entitled to get new vehicle or the insured value. There was no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties 1 & 2.
3. The third opposite party contended that the vehicle was brought to them for repair on 06.12.2011. They prepared an estimate for repairing the vehicle for an amount of Rs.7,07,917/- and copy of the same was forwarded to opposite parties 1 & 2 and the complainant. The surveyor deputed by 1 & 2 inspected the vehicle and later opposite parties 1 & 2 contacted the third opposite party and told them that they were liable to pay an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- only. There after despite repeated requests there was no response from the complainant and opposite parties 1 & 2 instructing them to carry out repairs. The estimate cost will have to be borne either by the complainant or opposite parties 1 & 2. Since neither of them is prepared do so, the vehicle is kept idle for long period. The complaint is frivolous as against the third opposite party.
4. Before the District Forum the complainant gave oral evidence as PW1. Exts.P1 to P8 were marked on his side. The District Forum deputed a commissioner to assess the loss to the vehicle. His report is marked as Ext.C1. On the side of opposite parties 1 & 2 the surveyor was examined at DW2 and one witness was examined as DW1. Exts.R1 & R2 were marked on their side. As per the impugned order the District Forum held that the complainant was entitled to realize the insured amount with interest and cost of Rs.2000/- from opposite parties 1 & 2. Hence the appeal by the aggrieved opposite parties 1 & 2. The main question that arises for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to claim compensation for the damage to the vehicle on repair basis or on total loss basis.
5. Admittedly, the complainant purchased the Honda City Car bearing Reg.No.KL-16G-4552 on 06.04.2011 and the vehicle was duly insured with the first opposite party for the period from 06.04.2011 to 05.04.2012. The insured amount as per the private car package policy for the vehicle was Rs.8,81,790/- . Admittedly, nearly about 7 months after the purchase of the vehicle it met with an accident on 30.11.2011. It is admitted and the records clearly reveal that severe damage was caused to the vehicle in the accident. The vehicle was brought for repairs at the workshop of the third opposite party. They prepared an estimate for repairing the vehicle for Rs.7,07,911/-. In the meanwhile, the appellants deputed DW2 an insurance surveyor for inspecting the vehicle and preparing estimate of the loss sustained to the vehicle. Ext.R2 is the report submitted by him. According to him, the net claim that can be allowed was only Rs.4,11,942.26/- it was according the appellants insisted that since the net claim assessed was less than 75% of the insured declared value of Rs.8,81,790/-, the complainant was entitled to claim damage on repair basis only. The complainant was not agreeable, obviously, as the cost of repair estimated by the third opposite party was more than Rs.7,00,000/-. It is pertinent to notice that even as per ExtR2 submitted by DW2 the complainant was entitled to claim Rs.4,11,942.26/- . Considering the IDV this itself indicates that severe damage was caused to the vehicle in the accident. The question therefore is whether the complainant can be compelled to claim on repair basis only based on Ext.R2 alone. In this regard, the oral evidence of DW2 himself becomes relevant.
6. As DW2, the surveyor admitted that damage to internal parts of the vehicle had happened in the accident. He had only assessed the external damage to the vehicle. In order to assess the internal damage the vehicle had to be dismantled. He admitted that no provision is made for repairing the damaged internal parts. If dismantled assessment of more damage may have to be made .Though the loss to a vehicle can be assessed in four ways, the surveyor obviously assessed the damage only on repair basis and that too not fully in the sense that the damage to the internal parts were not assessed. Though he denied the suggestion that he adopted a mode most favourable to the insurance company that appears to be the truth. In reexamination he affirmed that in the workshop they did not dismantle the vehicle and show him. His guess work is that if dismantled assessment of loss of about Rs.50,000/- more will have to be made. This part of the deposition is a mere guess work. The evidence of surveyor at once shows that the surveyor has assessed the damage on the lower side.
7. It is in this background Ext.C1 report prepared by the Commissioner deputed by the CDRF, Idukki becomes relevant. It is seen that the Forum deputed K.S.Ramakrishnan Ayyar, a Government of India approved surveyor and loss assessor and he was a chartered engineer and consultant. The photographs of the damaged vehicle and parts are attached to the report which is a detailed one. He assessed the net liability of the company at Rs.5,61,207.36/- and observed that the value of spare parts had gone up by 6 to 10 % during the past six months creating an additional liability of Rs.40,000/-. He further gave the opinion that the impact at the front was so heavy that there was every chance for a total body twist and damage to engine as well as other mechanical parts. He learned from the repairers that there would be an additional estimate while proceeding with the repairs. He estimated that the additional cost after further stripping and detailed examination would be around Rs.1,50,000/-. So the loss on repair basis would come to Rs.6,86,207.36/-. Hence he recommended settlement of the claim on total loss basis.
8. Ext.R2 report submitted by DW2 thus appears to be incomplete making Ext.C1 report more acceptable. The several circumstances highlighted convincingly show that the net claim can not be determined with precision. At the same time, the damage to the vehicle is so severe that it is unlikely that any amount of repair is likely to put the vehicle back to the condition at the time of accident. At the same time, the accident occurred around 7 months after purchasing the car. So the several circumstances justify the order of the District Consumer Forum directing payment of the insured declared value of the car. Hence there is no merit in the appeal and appeal is liable to be dismissed.
In the result the appeal is dismissed but without costs.
K.CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
V.V.JOSE : MEMBER
Be/
KERALA STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION
VAZHUTHACADU
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL NUMBER.55/13
JUDGMENT DTD: 22.02.2014
BE/
[ SMT.A.RADHA] PRESIDING MEMBER
[ SMT.SANTHAMMA THOMAS] MEMBER