State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Sh. Madan Lal. & Anr. on 16 September, 2015
H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
SHIMLA.
First Appeal No.127/2015
Date of Presentation: 15.07.2015
Date of Decision: 16.09.2015
..................................................................................
Shriram General Insurance Company Limited,
E-8, EPIP, RIICO, Sitapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan,
Through its Branch Manager,
Branch Office Bilaspur, Near P.G. College,
House No.3, Main Market, Bilaspur,
District Bilaspur, H.P.
.......... Appellant.
Versus
(1) Madan Lal, son of Shri Jagdish Chand,
Resident of Village Banan, Post Office Piplughat,
Tehsil Arki, District Solan, H.P.
(2) Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited,
Kachhighati, District Shimla, H.P.
.......... Respondents.
...............................................................................................
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, President
Hon'ble Mrs. Prem Chauhan, Member
Hon'ble Mr. Vijay Pal Khachi, Member
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For the Appellant:
Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate.
For Respondent No.1:
Mr. Rajan Kahol, Advocate.
For Respondent No.2:
Mr. Arvind Rattan, Advocate vice
Mr. Ashwani Kaundal, Advocate.
..........................................................................................................
O R D E R:
Justice Surjit Singh, President (Oral) M.A. No.498/2015:
Amount be deposited in the same bank, with which the initial deposit of `25,000/- was made. Disposed of.1
Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order? Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Madan Lal & Anr.
(F.A. No.127/2015) ___________________________________________________
2. Appellant has preferred this appeal against the order dated 20th May, 2015, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bilaspur, whereby, a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, filed against the appellant and respondent No.2, by respondent No.1, Madan Lal, has been allowed and direction given to the appellant to pay a sum of `7,12,500/-, on account of insurance claim, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date of filing of complaint, i.e. 19.08.2011, to the date of payment of the aforesaid amount of money and also to pay `5,000/-, as litigation expenses.
3. Madan Lal, respondent No.1 herein, owned a heavy goods vehicle (truck), which was insured with the appellant in the sum of `7.5 lacs, on IDV basis, for the period from 22.07.2010 to 21.07.2011. The truck was of 2007 make and its price at the time of purchase was `13.00 lacs. On 15.05.2011, vehicle, when in motion, caught fire and according to respondent/ complainant, it was completely damaged, resulting in total loss. Intimation of accident was given to the appellant. A Page 2 of 9 Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Madan Lal & Anr.
(F.A. No.127/2015) ___________________________________________________ Surveyor deputed by the appellant assessed the loss on repair basis at `4,68,352/-. Appellant did not pay even this much amount of money, on the excuse that respondent/complainant had not got the vehicle repaired and submitted the repair bills.
4. Respondent/complainant, Madan Lal, filed a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking a direction to the appellant to pay a sum of `7.5 lacs, i.e. an amount equivalent to the amount, in which the vehicle was insured on IDV basis, with interest and also to pay compensation and litigation expenses.
5. Complaint was contested by the appellant and it was stated that this was not a case of total loss, as the amount of money required for repair, in accordance with terms & conditions of the policy, was less than 75% of the sum insured and that even the amount of loss assessed by the Surveyor had not been paid, because of non- submission of repair bills by respondent/ complainant.
6. Learned District Forum, vide impugned order has held that this was a case of total loss and Page 3 of 9 Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Madan Lal & Anr.
(F.A. No.127/2015) ___________________________________________________ has accordingly directed the appellant to pay a sum of `7,12,500/-, with interest and costs, as aforesaid.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
8. Respondent/complainant submitted estimate of repair to the Surveyor deputed by the appellant. As per that estimate, a total sum of `14,80,585/- was required to make the vehicle roadworthy. Estimate submitted by the respondent/ complainant included cost of almost all the parts of the vehicle, including assembly frame (chassis), engine, driver's cabin. Surveyor of the appellant observed that many of the parts, which as per estimate of the respondent/complainant were required to be replaced, had not been damaged to an extent that they required replacement and could not have been repaired and some other parts were not damaged at all and did not require even repair.
9. On our questioning, whether any photographs were taken of the burnt vehicle, respondent/complainant's counsel has stated that photographs were taken and some photographs are available with him. He has produced six Page 4 of 9 Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Madan Lal & Anr.
(F.A. No.127/2015) ___________________________________________________ photographs, which we have marked C1, C2, C3, C4, C5 & C6. Photograph C1 shows that only the front side of the driver's cabin was burnt. Truck in the photograph is shown to be standing on its four wheels. Even the front tyres below the driver's cabin, particularly below the driver's seat, which is clearly visible in photograph C1, are not deflated. Body of the truck and rear tyre below it, are intact.
10. Now, if this is the condition of the vehicle, it cannot be said that its assembly frame, which is shown to be the first item requiring replacement at the cost of `1,12,000/-, as per estimate submitted by respondent/complainant, was damaged and required replacement. The fact demonstrates that estimate submitted by respondent/complainant was over-exaggerated. Two other photographs Annexure C3 & C5 show that even the pipes of radiator had not melted, which indicates that fire had been brought under control soon-after it erupted.
11. We have been shown a newspaper report also, which we have marked C7. As per this report, Fire Brigade had been called by a Congress Page 5 of 9 Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Madan Lal & Anr.
(F.A. No.127/2015) ___________________________________________________ Leader by the name of Mr. Tejasvi Sharma and the fire tender that reached the spot, extinguished the fire. As per this report, engine and cabin of the vehicle had been completely damaged in the fire.
12. Respondent/complainant himself lodged a report of the incident with the police. Copy of the said report is Annexure C-6. As per this report, fire had caused damage to the engine & driver's cabin and the total value of the loss was around `3.5 lacs. This report, in fact, clinches the issue, because the same is in the nature of admission by respondent/ complainant that damage caused to the vehicle was partial and only the engine and cabin had been damaged and the total amount of loss, in terms of money, was to the tune of `3.5 lacs.
13. Taking into consideration the photographs, newspaper report and the report, which the respondent/complainant himself lodged with the police claiming that the quantum of loss sustained due to fire, was `3.5 lacs, as also the observations made by us, on seeing the photographs, we hold that estimate submitted by respondent/complainant to the Surveyor of the Page 6 of 9 Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Madan Lal & Anr.
(F.A. No.127/2015) ___________________________________________________ appellant was over-exaggerated. If that is so, no reliance can be placed upon the estimate. When the estimate of respondent/complainant has been held to be over-exaggerated, there should be no hitch in accepting Surveyor's report, particularly when the amount of loss assessed by him exceeds the quantum of loss reported by respondent/ complainant himself, to the police.
14. As per Surveyor's report, Annexure R-3, respondent/complainant is entitled to a sum of `4,68,352/-, on repair basis. We have gone through the entire report. We find that while adding up the amounts of money required for repair of certain parts, replacement of which he disallowed, for the replacement of some parts, which were damaged beyond repair, labour charges, repair charges etc., the Surveyor has not taken into consideration an amount of `27,000/-, which he indicated in column No.15 of his report. So, to the amount of `4,68,352/- mentioned by the Surveyor as the net amount payable on repair basis, the aforesaid omitted amount of `27,000/-, is required to be added. With the addition of this amount, the total Page 7 of 9 Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Madan Lal & Anr.
(F.A. No.127/2015) ___________________________________________________ amount of money payable by the appellant works out at `4,95,352/-.
15. Appellant was not justified in not paying the aforesaid amount of money to respondent/ complainant on the pretext that bills of repair had not been submitted. Now, when respondent/ complainant, who was assured indemnification by the appellant and indemnification was for consideration, it could not have withheld the amount of money payable by it, in accordance with Surveyor's assessment, simply for the reason that bills of repair had not been submitted. It is optional for the insured, whether he wants the damaged insured goods repaired or not. Moreover, it is quite likely that on account of lack of money, insured was not in a position to get the vehicle repaired. Appellant, is thus, clearly guilty of deficiency in service.
16. As a result of the above discussion, we partly allow the appeal and direct that instead of paying an amount of `7,12,500/-, as directed by the learned District Forum, appellant shall pay a sum of `4,95,352/-, with interest at the rate and from the Page 8 of 9 Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Madan Lal & Anr.
(F.A. No.127/2015) ___________________________________________________ date, as directed by the learned District Forum, but in addition, appellant shall pay `50,000/-, on account of compensation for deficiency in service and mental harassment caused to respondent/ complainant/insured and `10,000/-, on account of litigation expenses. Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
17. A copy of the order be sent to each of the parties, free of cost, as per Rules.
(Justice Surjit Singh) President (Prem Chauhan) Member (Vijay Pal Khachi) Member September 16, 2015.
*dinesh* Page 9 of 9