State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Ashish Kumar Valecha vs Manager Cholamandalam General ... on 21 March, 2016
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G).
Appeal No.FA/2015/564
Instituted on : 05.11.2015
Ashish Kumar Walecha, S/o Shri Sevak Ram Walecha,
R/o : Naharpara,
Raipur (C.G.) ... Appellant.
Vs.
Manager,
Cholamandalam General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Near Choti Line, Devendra Nagar,
Raipur (C.G.) ...Respondent
PRESENT: -
HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI R.S.SHARMA, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE MS. HEENA THAKKAR, MEMBER
HON'BLE SHRI D.K. PODDAR, MEMBER
HON'BLE SHRI NARENDRA GUPTA, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES: -
Shri Shishir Bhandarkar, for the appellant.
Shri Manoj Prasad, for the respondent.
ORDER
Dated : 21/03/2016 PER :- HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT.
This appeal is directed against the order dated 15.09.2015, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (C.G.) (henceforth called "District Forum") in Complaint Case No.256/2012. By the impugned order, the District Forum, has dismissed the complaint of the appellant (complainant).
// 2 //
2. Briefly stated the fact of the complaint of the appellant (complainant) are that the appellant (complainant) is owner of a vehicle Tata Ace Chota Hathi. The appellant (complainant) purchased the above vehicle with the financial help of the O.P.No.2 Cholamandalam Finance Company to the tune of Rs.2,50,000/- and the remaining amount to the tune of Rs.54,000/- was deposited in cash. The main condition of the above finance is that the above vehicle would be insured with the respondent (O.P.No.1). The above vehicle was insured by the O.P. No.1 Cholamandalam General Insurance Company Limited on 07.10.2011 vide cover note No.8554267. After some time, the Insurance Company issued one page insurance policy without terms and conditions. The Insurance Policy Number was 3379/00623204 and the same was effective for the period from 07.10.2011 to 06.10.2012. On 20.10.2011, the said vehicle was stolen by the unknown person from Samta Colony, Raipur (C.G.). After locking the vehicle properly, the appellant (complainant) went inside house of his friend. After theft of the vehicle, the appellant (complainant) searched the vehicle at nearby places and when the vehicle could not be found then he immediately gave intimation regarding the theft of the vehicle to the Police Station Saraswati Nagar, Raipur on 21.10.2011, where Crime No.231/2011 for offence under Section 379 IPC and investigation was started and on 12.112.2011 final report was submitted as the vehicle could not be traced. The appellant // 3 // (complainant) gave intimation regarding the incident of theft of the vehicle to the Insurance Company on 21.10.2011 itself. Thereafter the appellant (complainant) submitted claim form before the Insurance Company, who assured the appellant (complainant) that his claim would be settled at the earliest. The Insurance Company also assured him that Investigator would be appointed and after obtaining signatures in some documents, the claim amount would be paid but till date the Insurance Company did not pay the claim amount to the appellant (complainant). After lapse of some time, the Investigator informed the appellant (complainant) that he was sent by the Insurance Company and he obtained signatures of the appellant (complainant) in some blank documents and assured that claim amount would be paid at the earliest, but inspite of making request several time, the respondent (O.P.no.1)did not make payment of the claim amount by saying that the claim is pending in the head office. The appellant (complainant) sent notice o the respondent (O.P.No.1) on 07.04.2012 and requested to settle his claim at the earliest but the respondent (O.P.No.1) did not make payment till date Hence, the appellant (complainant) filed consumer complaint before the District Forum and prayed for granting reliefs, as mentioned in the prayer clause of the complaint.
3. The respondent (O.P.No.1) has filed its written statement and averred that the complaint is neither maintainable in law nor on facts // 4 // and no cause had arisen to the appellant (complainant) to prefer this complaint. The complaint of the appellant (complainant) is not maintainable for want of cause of action and hence the same is liable to be dismissed with compensatory cost. The claim of the appellant (complainant) has already been settled on merits and repudiated according to condition No.5 of the terms and conditions of insurance policy. The same has already been mentioned in claim form and on stamp paper of Rs.100/- duly notarised. At the material time, the vehicle was unlocked and key left inside the vehicle. Moreover, the vehicle was not registered in R.T.O. according to mandatory provision of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The District Forum is having no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the dispute involved in the complaint in as much as it is not a consumer dispute and does not fall within the ambit of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed summarily on this score alone. The appellant (complainant) has failed to disclose all the correct facts and intentionally not come with clean hand and as such the appellant (complainant) cannot be allowed to gain from the same and hence not the District Forum, has no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the dispute involved in the complaint. The dispute raised by the appellant (complainant) in the present complaint is manifestly outside the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as the claim of the appellant // 5 // (complainant) is pending and not settled for want of necessary documents. The proceeding initiated by the appellant (complainant) under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is without jurisdiction. The definitions of the complainant, complaint, consumer dispute and service as defined in Section 2(1) of the said Act do not cover the claims arising under the present dispute and that from the aforesaid definitions, the appellant (complainant) is not 'consumer' and the controversy involved in the complaint is not a 'consumer dispute'. Hence the present complaint is baseless and flagrant abuse of process of law to harass the respondent (O.P.No.1). The appellant (complainant) has made the complaint relying on the terms of the policy and it is to be noted that as per the terms of the policy, any dispute should be adjudicated by the Arbitrator. The complaint filed by the appellant (complainant) is also not maintainable as the respondent No.1 has not committed any deficiency in service. Thus, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost. The vehicle was insured with the respondent (O.P.No.1) but the same was done subject to compliance of terms and conditions of the policy and in compliance of provisions of Section 149(2) of the Act. The vehicle was not registered in R.T.O. which amount to violation of mandatory provision of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Registration No. Is an identity of the vehicle and without registration No., it is not possible to trace vehicle. But the appellant (complainant) has ignored // 6 // the same and for this act, the appellant (complainant) himself is liable for the mishap. One page policy was not issued to the appellant (complainant). The terms and conditions is in a standard format. The alleged incident was not reported immediately to the respondent (O.P.No.1). The claim of the appellant (complainant) has been repudiated under the terms and conditions of the policy. N The vehicle was not in locked condition on the date of alleged mishap. The respondent (O.P. No.1) is not responsible for any act. The appellant (complainant) is not entitled to get compensation as per prayer clauses. The complaint filed by the appellant (complainant) is liable to be dismissed with compensatory cost.
4. The O.P.No.2 has filed it 's written statement and averred that the District Forum is not having any jurisdiction to entertain this petition as the allegation levelled against the OPs are of totally civil in nature. It is not possible for the District Forum to try and summarily decide this matter as a lot of intricacies are involved. A lot of evidences are to be adduced to prove and disprove the case which is not possible in a Summary Court. The present case has been filed on account of non-payment of insurance claim for which relief was sought from the respondent (O.P.No.1). However, the relief claimed under relief prayer No.3 cannot be admitted as it is surmised under law. The District Forum has no jurisdiction to grand such a relief which is more or like a permanent or temporary injunction. The appellant // 7 // (complainant) now makes allegation with regard to the non-payment of the insurance amount of the vehicle, which is totally not a matter related to the financer. The O.P.No.2 is financer of the vehicle and has nothing to do with it. Hence there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice as alleged which stands against the O.P.No.2. In the instant case, the consumer complaint is not maintainable before this Commission in view of the fact that there exist two clauses namely, the 'Arbitration' clause and 'Jurisdiction' clause in the said agreement. The parties to the agreement have to be referred to the Sole Arbitrator for arbitration. Besides, this Agreement has been accepted and executed between the appellant (complainant) and the opposite party and finalized by the Company at Chennai and all covenants, terms and conditions hereof including payments shall be observed and performed at Chennai. Jurisdiction Clause of the aforesaid Agreement clearly stipulates that jurisdiction of all the disputes arising out of the present agreement shall be exclusively tried by Courts at Chennai. Therefore, the instant complaint is not sustainable in eye of law and on this score alone, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The relation between the appellant (complainant) and O.P.No.2 is that of the borrower and financer only. If the bare perusal of the whole complaint is made, it shall reveal that there is no allegation of finance services. The present application is filed by the appellant (complainant) without having jurisdiction or power to file the // 8 // application against the O.P.No.2. Hence this complaint is liable to be dismissed on that score alone against the O.P.No.2. The appellant (complainant) has not locus standi to file the present application against the finance company. The above mentioned finance facility was granted to the appellant (complainant) on 11-11-2011 after executing a loan agreement and thereby the parties categorically agreed to abide the terms of agreement. The appellant (complainant) committed breach of contract by defying the terms of agreement. One cannot rewrite the subsisted agreement. It is the duty and responsibility of the appellant (complainant) to stick to the terms of agreement. The appellant (complainant) is not a consumer, as the appellant (complainant) himself had acted in contrary to the agreed terms and contract. The allegations are false, frivolous and vexatious. The O.P.No.2 did not compel the appellant (complainant) to take insurance policy from the respondent (O.P.No.1) The O.P. No.2 is financer of the vehicle. The financer after executing an agreement sanctioned loan and the customer cannot stop payment of installments on happening of any eventuality to the hypothecated vehicle. The relation of the financer and the customer is that of bailer and bailee. The O.P.No.2 is financer and the respondent (O.P.No.1) is the insurer and both are different company and is having separate entity. The said vehicle was financed to the appellant (complainant) and huge default was committed by the appellant (complainant) and whatever // 9 // insurance claim that shall be payable to the O.P.No.2 should be paid to the O.P. No.2 as per the agreement and as per regulatory norms. The appellant (complainant) has no proprietary right to claim any compensation or relief against the O.P.No.2. Hence there is no deficiency on the part of the O.P.No.2. The appellant (complainant) want to get away with the payment of installments under the pretext of insurance claim. The appellant (complainant) is leveling false and vexatious allegations with an ulterior motto. The appellant (complainant) had concealed many material facts concerning to the vehicle. The breach of the terms is on the part of the appellant (complainant) only. The complaint of the appellant (complainant) is liable to be dismissed.
5. The appellant (complainant) filed documents. Annexure 1 is Motor Policy Schedule cum Certificate of Insurance issued by Cholamandalam MS General Insurance, Annexure 2 is Sales Certificate issued by Jaika Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Annexure 3 is Tax Invoice issued by Jaika Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Annexure 4 is Bankers Cheque No.914093 for Rs.31,947/-, Annexure 5 is First Information Report (Under Section 154 Cr. P.C.), Annexure 6 is Police Investigation Report dated 23.11.2011 and Final Report, Annexure 7 is letter dated 20.03.2012 sent by the appellant (complainant) to the Senior Manager Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Liited, Chennai, Annexure 8 is notice dated 07.04.2012 sent by Shri Saurabh Shukla Advocate on // 10 // behalf of appellant (complainant) to respondent (O.P.No.1), Annexure 9 is postal receipt, annexure 10 is acknowledgment, Annexure 11 is letter dated 09.07.2012 sent by the Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai to the appellant (complainant). Letter dated 22.10.2011 sent by the appellant (complainant) to Regional Transport Officer, Raipur (C.G.), letter dated 05.03.2014 sent by the appellant (complainant) to Superintendent of Police, District Raipur , Power of Attorney.
6. The respondent (O.P.No.1) has filed documents. Annexure OP- 1 is repudiation letter dated 09.07.2012 sent by the Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. to the appellant (complainant), Annexure OP-2 is Motor Insurance Claim Form, Annexure OP-3 is affidavit of the appellant (complainant), Annexure OP-4 is statement of the appellant (complainant), Motor Policy Schedule Cum Certificate of Insurance.
7. Learned District Forum, after having considered the material placed before it by the parties, has dismissed the complaint.
8. Shri Shishir Bhandarkar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant (complainant) has argued that the learned District Forum has erred in not awarding the compensation to the appellant (complainant). He further argued that the appellant (complainant) has immediately lodged First Information Report before the concerned Police Station and also intimated regarding the incident of theft of the // 11 // vehicle in question to the respondent (O.P. No.1). In the First Information Report, it has been specifically mentioned that the vehicle in question was parked safely . The Investigator appointed by the Insurance Company obtained signatures of the appellant (complainant) in some blank documents and assured him that the claim amount would be paid at the earliest but instead of making payment of the claim amount to the appellant (complainant), the Insurance Company informed the appellant (complainant) that his claim has been repudiated by the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company has wrongly repudiated the claim of the appellant (complainant). If the key was left in the vehicle by the appellant (complainant), even then the appellant (complainant) is entitled to get compensation on non-standard basis. He placed reliance on First Appeal No.2014/524 Bhagwanta Singh Lodhi Vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited decided by this Commission vide order dated 19.12.2014 and First Appeal No.FA/2015/458 Rajesh Bhandari Vs. Branch Manager, The New India Assurance Company Limited and another decided by this Commission on 07.01.2016.
9. Shri Manoj Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the respondent (O.P.) has supported the impugned order passed by the District Forum and submitted that it appears that the appellant (complainant) left the vehicle unattended without taking proper precautions, therefore, the appellant (complainant) has violated the // 12 // terms and conditions of the insurance policy, hence the respondent (O.P.No.1) has rightly repudiated the claim of the appellant (complainant). The impugned order passed by the learned District Forum, is reasonable and does not call for any interference by this Commission. The appeal filed by the appellant (complainant) is liable to be dismissed.
10. We have heard learned counsels for the parties and have also perused the record of the District Forum.
11. The respondent (O.P.No.1) has filed document Annexure OP-1 i.e. Letter of Repudiation dated 09.07.2012, Annexure OP-2 Motor Insurance Claim Form, Annexure OP-3 affidavit of the appellant (complainant) and Annexure OP-4 Statement of the appellant (complainant) recorded by the Investigator. The appellant (complainant) stated that he left the key in the vehicle. On the basis of above statement, the respondent (O.P.No.1) repudiated the claim of the appellant (complainant) on the ground that the appellant (complainant) left the vehicle unattended without taking adequate precautions for safeguarding the vehicle in question.
12. In the instant case, the incident of theft of the vehicle took place in the intervening night of 20/21-10-2011 and the First Information Report was lodged before Police Station, Saraswati Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) on 21.10.2011 at about 11.00 A.M. It appears that the First // 13 // Information Report No.296/2011 for offence under Section 379 IPC was immediately lodged by the Police Station, Saraswati Nagar, Raipur (C.G.). The appellant (complainant) specifically pleaded that the matter was also intimated to the Insurance Company on 21.10.2011. The respondent (O.P.No.1) did not dispute the above facts. It appears that the matter was reported by the appellant (complainant) to the concerned Police Station within 24 hours of the occurrence of the incident of theft and intimation was also given to the respondent (O.P.No.1) regarding the incident of theft of the vehicle.
13. Looking to the statement of the appellant (complainant) recorded by the Investigator and affidavit of the appellant (complainant), it appears that the appellant (complainant) left the key in the vehicle and left the vehicle unattended and went to his friend's house for washing hands. It appears that the vehicle was left unattended by the appellant (complainant) without taking adequate precaution for safeguarding his vehicle.
14. Now we shall consider whether on the above ground, the appellant (complainant) is dis-entitled to get compensation from the Insurance Company ?
15. In Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Abdul Sattar & Anr. 2016 (1) CPR 541 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission has observed that "In event of theft of vehicle, only requirement on part of // 14 // insured was to intimate Police immediately and cooperate in securing conviction of offender. Complainant could not have even known about murder of his driver and theft of his car till dead body was recovered and he was intimated about incident by Police. There was no occasion for complainant to intimate insurance company about theft of his car within 24-72 hours of incident. This is not a case of intentional delay of intimation which may be created as violation of condition of insurance policy which may justify repudiation of claim. Fora below rightly allowed consumer complaint filed by respondent. Revision Petition dismissed."
16. In the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Kamal Singhal, IV (2010) CPJ 297 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission has held that "There has been catena of decisions of the National Commission and also Hon'ble Apex Court and the issue is no longer res integra that in case of theft of vehicle, issue of breach of policy condition (s) was not germane to the issue and we profitably refer to few decisions of the National Commission in the matters of (1) National Insurance Company Ltd. v. J.P. Leasing & Finance Pvt. Ltd., (R.P No.643 / 2005), (2) Punjab Chemical Agency v. National Insurance Company Ltd. (R.P. No.2097), (3) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sou. Bahrati Rajiv Bankar, (RP No.3294 / 2009) and (4) National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Jeetmal, (RP No.3366/2009). There has been a landmark judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of National Insurance Company Ltd. v Nitin Khandelwal, IV // 15 // (2008) CPJ 1 (SC), where the Hon'ble Apex Court held that in the matter of theft of vehicle, breach of conditions of policy was not germane and also held further "the appellant Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle when the insurer has obtained comprehensive policy to the loss caused to the insurer. The respondent submitted that even assuming that there was a breach of condition of policy, the appellant Insurance Company ought to have settled the claim on 'non-standard 'basis".
17 In the case of National Insurance Company V. Lajwanti, II (2007) CPJ 48 (NC), the vehicle was stolen on 19.01.2002 at about 4.00 a.m. and report was lodged on the same day under Section 379, IPC and despite best efforts made by Police, the car could not be traced. The claim of the complainant was repudiated by the Insurance Company on the ground that stolen was doubtful. The State Commission allowed the appeal and awarded compensation to the complainant and National Commission upheld the finding recorded by the State Commission.
18. In the case of Amalendu Sahoo v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., II (2010) CPJ 9 (SC), Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed thus :
"12. Reference in this case may be made to the decision of National Commission rendered in the case of United India Insurance Company Limited v. Gian Singh, reported in II (2006) CPJ 83 (NC) = 2006 CTJ 221 (CP) ((NCDRC). In that // 16 // decision of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) it has been held that in a case of violation of condition of the policy as to the nature of use of the vehicle, the claim ought to be settled on a non-standard basis. The said decision of the National Commission has been referred to by this Court in the case of National Insurance Company v. Nitin Khandelwal, reported in IV (2008) CPJ 1 (SC) = 2008 (7) SCALE 351. In paragraph 13 of the judgment, in the case of Nitin Khandelwal (supra) this Court held :
"...... The appellant Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle when the insurer has obtained comprehensive policy for the loss caused to the insurer. The respondent submitted that even assuming that there was a breach of condition of the insurance policy, the appellant Insurance Company ought to have settled the claim on non-standard basis."
19. In the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Nitin Khandelwal, IV (2008) CPJ 1 (SC), Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed thus :
"12. In the case in hand, the vehicle has been snatched or stolen. In the case of theft of vehicle breach of condition is not germane. The appellant Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle when the insurer has obtained comprehensive policy for the loss caused to the insurer. The respondent submitted that even assuming that there was a breach of condition of the insurance policy, the appellant Insurance Company ought to have settled the claim on non standard basis. The Insurance Company cannot repudiate the claim in toto in case of loss of vehicle due to theft.
// 17 //
14. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the real question is whether, according to the contract between the respondent and the appellant, the respondent is required to be indemnified by the appellant. On the basis of the settled legal position, the view taken by the State Commission cannot be faulted and the National Commission has correctly upheld the said order of the State Commission"
20. In the case of Baljeet v. United India Insurance Company Limited., 2014 (1) CPR 61 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission has observed thus :
"12. The above issue is no more resintegra. Similar question came up for consideration before the National Commission in the matter of United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Gian Singh (2006) 2 CPJ 83 (NC) wherein it has been held that in case violation of conditions of the policy so as to nature of use of the vehicle, the claim ought to be settled on a non- standard basis.
13. The question whether the insurance company is justified in repudiating the claim of the insured for violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy in the case of theft of vehicle came up before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nitin Khandelwal (2008) 11 SCC 259, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed thus :
"In the case in hand, the vehicle has been snatched or stolen. In the case of theft of vehicle breach of condition is not germane. The appellant Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle when the insurer has obtained comprehensive policy for the loss caused to the insurer. The // 18 // respondent submitted that even assuming that there was a breach of condition of the insurance policy, the appellant Insurance Company ought to have settled the claim on non- standard basis. The Insurance Company cannot repudiate the claim in toto in case of loss of vehicle due to theft.
In the instant case, the State Commission allowed the claim only on non-standard basis, which has been upheld by the National Commission. On consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances in the case, the law seems to be well settled that in case of theft of vehicle, nature of use of the vehicle cannot be looked into and the Insurance Company cannot repudiate the claim on that basis.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, the real question is whether, according to the contract between the respondent and the appellant, the respondent is required to be indemnified by the appellant. On the basis of settled legal position, the view taken by the State Commission cannot be faulted and the National Commission has correctly upheld the said order of the State Commission".
21. In First Appeal No.2013/272 - Sukhram Kashyap v. National Insurance Company Limited decided on 27.05.2014, this Commission has observed thus :-
"19. Looking to the judgment of Hon'ble National Commission passed in Mohd. Unis vs. United India Insurance Company Limited (Supra) & Baljeet v. United India Insurance Company Limited (Supra), it appears that the breach was not a fundamental breach and hence the respondent (O.P.) (Insurance Company) was // 19 // required to pay compensation at least on non-standard basis to the appellant (complainant).
20. In the instant case, the copy of the insurance policy was filed by both the parties. In the insurance policy, the Insured Declared Value (I.D.V.) of the vehicle is mentioned as Rs.32,015/-, but the learned District Forum, has dismissed the complaint of the appellant (complainant) and the District Forum should have awarded compensation to the appellant (complainant) on non-standard basis i.e. 75% of the I.D.V. of the vehicle. The I.D.V. of the vehicle is Rs.32,015/- and its 75% comes out to Rs.24,011/-."
22. In First Appeal No.2013/607 - Kanchan Kumar Verma Vs. National Insurance Company Limited, decided on 08.07.2014, this Commission has observed thus :-
"17. On the basis of above judgment, merely on the ground that the respondent/ (complainant) violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the claim of the respondent (complainant) could not be repudiated in toto."
23. In First Appeal No.2014/524 - Bhagwanta Singh Lodhi Vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, (Supra), this Commission observed thus :-
"26. Therefore, the appeal of the appellant (complainant) is allowed and the impugned order dated 08.07.2014 passed by learned District Forum, Raipur (C.G.) is set aside and it is directed that respondent (O.P.) will pay a sum of Rs.3,99,525/- (Three Lakhs Ninety Nine Thousand Five Hundred Twenty Five only) to the appellant (complainant), along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till date of payment. No order as to the cost of this appeal."
// 20 //
24. In the instant case the respondent (O.P.No.1) repudiated the claim of the appellant (complainant) on the ground that the vehicle in question was left unattended by the appellant (complainant) without proper precautions being taken to prevent further damages or loss.
25. On the basis of above judgments, merely on the ground that the appellant (complainant) left the vehicle in question unattended in front of his friend's house, the claim of the appellant (complainant), cannot be repudiated by the respondent (O.P. No.1) in toto.
26. In view of above cited judgment, the appellant (complainant) is entitled to get compensation on non-standard basis. In the insurance policy, the Insured Declared Value (IDV) of the vehicle is mentioned as Rs.3,03,493/-. For convenience, the same is determined Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Only).On non-standard basis, the appellant (complainant) is entitled for 75% of Rs.3,00,000/-, which comes out to Rs.2,25,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Twenty Five Thousand Only).
27. Therefore, the appeal of the appellant (complainant) is allowed and the impugned order dated 15.09.2015, passed by learned District Forum, Raipur (C.G.) is set aside and it is directed that respondent (O.P. No.) will pay a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Twenty Five Thousand Only) to the appellant (complainant), along with // 21 // interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 24.07.2012 till date of payment. No order as to the cost of this appeal. (Justice R.S. Sharma) (Ms. Heena Thakkar) (D.K. Poddar) (Narendra Gupta) President Member Member Member /03/2016 /03/2016 /03/2016 /03/2016