Delhi District Court
Pannu Car Rental Pvt Ltd vs United India Insurance Co,. Ltd on 30 April, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MRS VINEETA GOYAL,
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL-03),
PATIALA HOUSE, NEW DELHI
CS (COMM) No. 719/2022
M/s. Pannu Car Rentals (P) Ltd.
At Shop No.5, Sector-4,
DIZ Area, BKS Marg,
New Delhi. ....Plaintiff
Versus
1 M/s. United India Insurance Company Ltd.,
Claim Hub 8th Floor, Kanchenjunga Building,
Barakhamba Road, New Delhi.
Through its Manager.
2 M/s. United India Insurance Company Ltd.
416/1, First Floor, Karkardooma,
Opposite Metro Station Karkardoom,
East Delhi, Delhi-92.
Through its Manager. ....Defendant
Date of Institution : 23.08.2022
Date on which judgment pronounced : 30.04.2025
JUDGMENT
CS(COMM)719/2022 M/s. Pannu Car Rentals (P) Ltd. vs. M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Page No. 1 / 25
1. This suit has been instituted for recovery of Rs. 9,65,000/- (Rupees Nine Lacs Sixty Five Thousand Only) along- with pendente lite and future interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of filing till the date of realization of amount and costs against the defendant.
2 Facts as epitomized in plaint are that the plaintiff engaged in the business of giving vehicles on rental basis with driver as well as self-drive basis under the name and style of M/s. Pannu Car Rental Pvt. Ltd., got insurance of its vehicle TATA SAFARI STROME (hereinafter referred to as insured vehicle) bearing registration No. DL-IN-A-1341 vide policy No. 0401813118P111422013 for the period from 05.12.2018 to 04.12.2019 midnight from defendant no.2. The plaintiff averred that, however, the insured vehicle collided with a tree at Chandigarh under the jurisdiction of P.P. Lake, and in this regard DD entry No.31A dated 05.10.2019 was registered.
2.1 It is further averred that the plaintiff gave intimation regarding the damages of the insured vehicle along with driving licence of the driver, registration certificate, copy of DD Entry, and also lodged the claim with the defendants and after lodging the claim, defendant stated to get repair the insured vehicle from TATA TREO-GO Auto Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi. When the estimate was given by the said workshop, the defendant Insurance company was not satisfied and asked the plaintiff to get it repaired CS(COMM)719/2022 M/s. Pannu Car Rentals (P) Ltd. vs. M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Page No. 2 / 25 from another workshop i.e. Auto Vikas Sales and Services i.e. 57, Rama Road, New Delhi-15, and when the estimate of the same was given by the said workshop, the defendants were again not satisfied as the same was more than IDV i.e. Rs.7,65,000/- only. The estimate of both the workshops were more than IDV. After being not satisfied with the estimates of both the workshops, defendant requested the plaintiff to take the claim on the basis of cash loss for which the plaintiff agreed but defendants also did not pay the same till date and tried to linger on the matter by one pretext or the other.
2.2 It is then averred that the plaintiff wrote a letter and also visited at the defendant's office and contacted the officials of defendant but all in vain and lastly, the plaintiff wrote a letter dated 13.05.2020 to defendant, thereafter defendant also wrote a letter for no claim mentioning the reason for submitting the final bills payment receipt, which was not served upon plaintiff but plaintiff collected the same three months ago. It is further alleged that defendant itself told plaintiff for clearing the claim on the basis of cash loss basis and the insured vehicle was lying in the workshop where it is getting depreciated even more.
2.3 It is further averred that the defendant does not want to pay the claim of plaintiff intentionally, knowingly and deliberately like other customers who are also suffering for not passing the claim and approached the Court of law and akin to CS(COMM)719/2022 M/s. Pannu Car Rentals (P) Ltd. vs. M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Page No. 3 / 25 other customer, defendants are not interested to grant the claim on unbased excuses. It is argued that the plaintiff is suffering due to non-availability of vehicle as it could not get repaired till date as the same is in condition of total loss which is more than 300% for IDV. The defendant has mentioned in its letter dated 18.06.2020 addressed to plaintiff that plaintiff has to cooperate for re- inspection by surveyor of the defendant while the insured vehicle was lying in workshop was inspected by the Surveyor many times. This tactics are being adopted by defendant just not to pass claim of the plaintiff.
2.4 Thereafter, the plaintiff left with no option, sent a legal notice dated 29.07.2021 to defendant, which was replied by the defendants through its counsel, on 29.08.2021. It is further stated that defendants are avoiding intentionally, knowingly, deliberately the legitimate claim of plaintiff for which defendants are legally bound to pay the same and plaintiff is legally entitled to recover the same. Plaintiff is also entitled to recover the damages since the date of accident and vehicle lying in the workshop towards depreciation and other damages along with interest at the prevailing market rate of 18% along with the claim and also entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 2 lacs so total claim of the plaintiff comes to Rs.9,65,000/- which consisted of Rs. 7,65,000/- being the IDV of the damaged car and another sum of Rs. Two lakhs as compensation.
CS(COMM)719/2022 M/s. Pannu Car Rentals (P) Ltd. vs. M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Page No. 4 / 252.5 It is further stated that plaintiff initiated Pre- Institution Mediation proceedings which ended with issuance of Non-Starter Report dated 31.01.2022. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed the present suit praying that a decree of Rs.9,65,000/- along with pendente lite and future interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit till its realization be passed in favour of plaintiff. The plaintiff also prayed that cost of the suit be also awarded in favour of the plaintiff.
3 Pursuant to summons issued to the defendants, the defendants appeared and filed written statement wherein the defendants did not deny about his package policy of the insured vehicle with it, and stated immediately after receiving of the information of accident, appointed a Surveyor M.M. Puri & Company, who upon instructions of defendant had visited at the workshop of M/s. Treo Go Auto Pvt. Ltd., Okhla, Delhi, and scrutinized the damages item wise and the estimates of repairs of M/s. Treo Go Pvt. Ltd. On 18.02.2020, the surveyor after meeting with representative of plaintiff and representative of workshop agreed upon and advised to start repair work of the insured vehicle. After considering each and every aspect and the decision taken in the meeting held on 18.02.2020, the surveyor came to the conclusion that since the repair cost is below 75% of IDV, therefore it cannot be considered under total loss basis. The Surveyor had sent repeated mails as reminder to the workshop and insured but no response / reply received from them. The surveyor CS(COMM)719/2022 M/s. Pannu Car Rentals (P) Ltd. vs. M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Page No. 5 / 25 just before submitting the final survey report had received a mail dated 11.03.2020 from the workshop wherein workshop had claimed the liability on repair basis for the subject vehicle to be Rs.17,27,438/- precisely. In reply to the mail, the surveyor responded that the parts claimed to be replaced are not even have a scratch mark and no development is taking place in spite of passing 23 days from the meeting, which clearly shows that some reasons best known to the workshop and the insured, are delaying the settlement of the claim and not starting the repairs of the insured vehicle. In the said circumstances and as the claim was pending for a long time, the surveyor accordingly had given its Final Survey Report on 13.03.2020.
3.1 It is further stated that the defendant had written a letter dated 19.03.2020 to the plaintiff stating that as per the survey report the claim may be settled on repair basis and in spite of being agreed for repairs among all the parties in the meeting held on 18.02.2020, that the insured vehicle may be repaired, no steps have been taken by the insured and the workshop. The defendant requested the plaintiff to get the repair of the insured vehicle within 15 days and submit the final bill and payment receipt in order to process the claim. The defendant had also clearly mentioned in its letter that in case the plaintiff / insured fails to take any action within 15 days from the receipt of this letter, the defendant insurance company will be constrained to declare the claim as not pursued claim. It is further stated that CS(COMM)719/2022 M/s. Pannu Car Rentals (P) Ltd. vs. M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Page No. 6 / 25 defendant again had written a letter to the plaintiff / insured on 18.06.2020 intimating therein that since no action has been taken by the plaintiff / insured, inspite of letter dated 19.03.2020, the defendant is constrained to close the file a 'No Claim'.
3.2 It is further submitted that the defendant had also sent reply to the legal notice dated 29.07.2021 through its counsel wherein it is stated that plaintiff has made false, incorrect, frivolous, baseless, concocted, mischievous and ill motivated allegations / accusations in the notice and the same liable to be discarded at the very preliminary stage. In the reply, the defendant had also brought to the notice of the plaintiff that as per survey report, the surveyor has given his consent to the plaintiff for repair and the same has been approved by the competent officials of the defendant and at that time the plaintiff was also ready for repair. As per terms and conditions of the policy, the insured vehicle shall be treated as a CTL (Constructive Total Loss) if the aggregate cost of retrieval and / or repair cost of the vehicle exceeds 75% of the IDV of the insured vehicle. In the present case, as the assessment made by the surveyor is less than 75% of the IDV, therefore, the loss / damages to the insured vehicle could not be treated as total loss.
3.3 It is further submitted that the present suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable before this Court as the accident had taken place at Sukhna Lake, Chandigarh, as such the cause of CS(COMM)719/2022 M/s. Pannu Car Rentals (P) Ltd. vs. M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Page No. 7 / 25 action had arisen at Chandigarh and not within the jurisdiction of this Court. The defendant further submitted that the plaintiff is making a false case by making allegation that the defendant had requested the plaintiff to take the claim on the basis of cash loss basis but in fact the defendant on the basis of survey report had sent letter to the plaintiff to start the repair work and give the final bills and payment receipts in order to settle the claim of the plaintiff, however, inspite of the letter sent by the defendant the plaintiff had not responded, due to which the claim was closed as 'No Claim'.
3.4 It is further submitted that the delay in repairing the vehicle was due to the plaintiff and defendant is not liable to pay for any depreciation, loss or damage caused to the insured vehicle as the plaintiff had failed to repair the insured vehicle inspite of repeated requests made by the surveyor to start repair.
3.5 In para wise reply, the defendant submitted that it is a matter of record that plaintiff had given intimation regarding the damages to the insured vehicle and infact, it is the plaintiff who was not cooperating the surveyor at the time of investigation of the claim. The surveyor has already given their willingness for repair of the insured vehicle to the plaintiff as well as workshop after all this, the parties have agreed upon the repairing of the vehicle as it was less than 75% of the IDV. It is further submitted that defendant insurance company had always tried to resolve and CS(COMM)719/2022 M/s. Pannu Car Rentals (P) Ltd. vs. M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Page No. 8 / 25 settle the claim of the plaintiff which is apparent from the conduct of the defendant as the defendant immediately after receiving the information about the claim of the plaintiff had appointed the surveyor to investigate the claim and assessed the loss. The surveyor on the instruction of the defendant and after thoroughly considering the estimates given by the plaintiff, had assessed the claim and on the basis of the survey report, the defendant insurance company had written letter to the plaintiff to get the vehicle repaired within 15 days and submit the bills and payment receipts in order to process the claim. The defendant had always tried to settle the claim but it is the plaintiff who had failed to respond to the request made by the surveyor and the defendant.
3.6 It is further submitted that the defendant had sent letter dated 18.06.2020 to the plaintiff but the plaintiff had wrongly interpreted the contents of the letter. Re-inspection in the said letter is only to inspect once the vehicle is fully repaired by the workshop but the plaintiff is taking the contents of the letter to a different direction.
3.7 It is further submitted that the defendant had not denied the claim but since the plaintiff had failed to give to letter sent by the defendant repeatedly as such the defendant had to close the file as 'No Claim'. Whatever the assessment made by the surveyor has been made after considering the estimates made by the workshops as such the plaintiff is not entitled to any CS(COMM)719/2022 M/s. Pannu Car Rentals (P) Ltd. vs. M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Page No. 9 / 25 amount higher than the amount assessed by the surveyor. The defendant at no point of time had avoided from paying the claim. Since there if no default on the part of the defendant, as such the plaintiff is not entitled to recover any amount as damages / loss and depreciation of the insured vehicle and plaintiff is also not entitled to any interest as alleged. It is further submitted that the defendant had not given any instruction to the plaintiff as regards to the change of workshop for repairing the vehicle. On these grounds, the defendant prayed that the suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed.
4 Replication to the written statement was filed by the plaintiff and denied the contents of written statement and reiterated the averments made in the plaint. In addition to that, the plaintiff stated that insured vehicle has been totally damaged but the defendant is relying on the report of surveyor who has given the less loss report than the actual loss occurred in the incident to the insured vehicle. It is further stated that the defendant sent the reply to the legal notice in a vague manner just to avoid the liability for which defendant is bound to pay the same being an insurance company and after getting the policy by the plaintiff. It is further submitted that this court has territorial jurisdiction because offices of both the parties are situated within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and the policy was issued by the defendant at Delhi within this jurisdiction so the question of jurisdiction at Chandigarh does not arise at any point of time.
CS(COMM)719/2022 M/s. Pannu Car Rentals (P) Ltd. vs. M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Page No. 10 / 255 From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 22.11.2022 :
(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of a sum of Rs.9,65,000/- as prayed for ? OPP
(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest, if so, at that rate and for which period? OPP
(iii) Whether this court has territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate this suit? OPD
(iv) Relief.
6 The matter was listed for evidence of plaintiff. The plaintiff has examined Sh. Ghanshyam Mehra, AR of plaintiff company, as PW-1, who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW-1/A and thereafter, closed his evidence.
7 Thereafter matter was listed for evidence of defendant and defendant has examined Sh. Rakesh Kumar, its Manager / AR, as DW-1, who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.DW-1/A and thereafter, closed his evidence.
8 Arguments were addressed by Sh. B.S. Rana and Sh. D.S. Rana, Ld. Counsels for the plaintiff as well as Sh. M.N. Singh, Ld. Counsel for defendant. Written submissions were also filed on behalf of parties.
CS(COMM)719/2022 M/s. Pannu Car Rentals (P) Ltd. vs. M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Page No. 11 / 259 I have heard Ld. Counsels for the parties and perused the record as well as written submissions filed on behalf of parties and my issue wise findings are as under:
Issue No.1 :
10 The onus of proving this issue is upon plaintiff. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for recovery of Rs.9,65,000/- which consisted of Rs. 7,65,000/- being the IDV of the damaged car and another sum of Rs. Two lakhs as compensation along with pendente lite and future interest @ 18% p.a. against the defendant insurance company.
10.1 In order to substantiate its case, the plaintiff examined its Authorized Representative Sh. Ghanshyam Mehra as PW-1, who tendered his affidavit in evidence Ex.PW-1/A and made statement in consonance with the averments made in the plaint. He deposed that the plaintiff is running its business under the name and style of M/s. Pannu Car Rentals Pvt. Ltd. and giving vehicles on rental basis with driver as well as self-drive basis. He then deposed that he got insurance of its vehicle TATA SAFARI STROME bearing no. DL-IN_A-1341 vide policy no.0401813118P111422013 for the period from 05.12.2018 to 04.12.2019 midnight from defendant no.2. He further deposed that the said vehicle was collided with the tree at Chandigarh under the jurisdiction of P.P. Lake and DD Entry 31-A dated 05.10.2019 was registered and he had given the intimation CS(COMM)719/2022 M/s. Pannu Car Rentals (P) Ltd. vs. M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Page No. 12 / 25 regarding the damages of the said vehicle and lodged the claim with defendants to which defendant stated to get repair the vehicle from TATA TREO-GO AUTO PVT. LTD., New Delhi, and the estimate was given by the said workshop from which defendants were not satisfied and directed plaintiff to get the vehicle repaired from another workshop i.e. Auto Vikas Sales and Services and when the estimate was given by the said workshop, the defendants were again not satisfied as the same were more than IDV i.e. Rs.7,65,000/- only, but the estimate of both the workshop were more than IDV. Thereafter after not being satisfied with the estimates of both the workshops, the defendant requested plaintiff to take the claim on the basis cash loss basis.
10.2 The PW-1 has relied upon/proved following documents: -
Certification of incorporation of plaintiff - Mark A Board Resolution of plaintiff company dated 12.12.2022 - Mark B Copy of policy dated 05.12.2018 - Ex.PW-1/3 Copy of legal notice dated 29.07.2021 issued on behalf of plaintiff - Ex.PW-1/4 Postal receipt - Ex.PW-1/5 Reply to legal notice dated 19.08.2021 - Ex.PW-1/6 Copy of estimate of damages issued by Autovikas Sales & Services Pvt. Ltd. and TATA Treo Go Auto Pvt. Ltd. - Mark C Copy of Registration Certificate of Car no.HR 38 AA 1341 registered in favour of plaintiff company -
Mark D Photocopy of driving licence of one Sh. Naveen Kumar - Mark E Photocopy of letter dated 13.05.2020 and 11.11.2020 issued by plaintiff company to the defendant - Mark CS(COMM)719/2022 M/s. Pannu Car Rentals (P) Ltd. vs. M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Page No. 13 / 25 F Non-Starter report - Ex.PW-1/7 10.3 During cross-examination of PW-1, he deposed that he was working as a Manager in the plaintiff company since July, 2019 and that role of the Manager is to take care of the court cases wherein the plaintiff company is involved in as well as to keep track of all cars of the plaintiff company that are involved in any accident. He then deposed that the vehicle in question met with accident in Chandigarh in the month of October, 2019. When asked about any other accident of any other vehicle of the plaintiff company, except the vehicle in question, since the date of his joining in plaintiff company, the PW-1 deposed that there were multiple incidents but he was unable to remember. When asked about the production of document for the other vehicles that have been involved in accident, the PW-1 deposed that he could produce the same. The PW-1 further deposed that he remembered the registration details of the vehicles i.e. DL 1NA 1341 involved in the accident but he was unable to tell whether the vehicle in question was insured with the defendant company for the period prior to the period of the policy Ex.PW-1/3. There is nothing on record to show that plaintiff informed the defendant about repairing of vehicle in question with Tata Treo Go Auto Limited. The claim form was provided to the defendant within 2-3 days after getting estimates for damages. Plaintiff has not issued any letter to showcasing that defendant asked for a second estimate from Auto Vikas Sales. Defendant had not issued any letter for CS(COMM)719/2022 M/s. Pannu Car Rentals (P) Ltd. vs. M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Page No. 14 / 25 settling the Claim on cash loss basis. He admitted that estimate given by workshop were more than IDV value/insured amount. He denied the suggestions put-forth during cross examination.
10.4 The defendant adduced the evidence by way of affidavit of Sh. Rakesh Kumar Manager of the defendant insurance company and the witnesss appearing as DW-1 tendered the copy of insurance policy as RW1/1 which is already exhibited by the plaintiff, E-mail dated 13.03.2020 (initially exhibited as RW 1 /2 but later de-exhibited as Mark-A), Survey Report dated 13.03.2020 (Ex. RW 1/ 3), Copy of Letter dated 19.03.2020 and letter dated 18.06.2020 (Ex. RW 1/ 4) and copy of reply to legal notice dated 19.08.2021 as RW-1/5 which is already exhibited by the plaintiff. This witness in cross examination admitted that vehicle in question was insured with the defendant. No spot survey was conducted. Defendant was informed of the accident on 19.10.2019. He admitted in the affidavit Ex.DW-1/A, he has not stated about the delay on the part of the plaintiff informing about the accident of vehicle in question. He cannot tell who participated in meeting dated 18.02.2020. He, upon further cross examination, stated that the Surveyor report Ex.PW-1/3 an assessment of loss to the tune of Rs. 4,66,676/- has been shown. He further stated that Registration certificate Ex.DW-1/X has a different number as mentioned on insurance policy Ex.PW-1/3 but in later part of cross examination admitted that registration certificate was given by plaintiff during the time claim was lodged CS(COMM)719/2022 M/s. Pannu Car Rentals (P) Ltd. vs. M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Page No. 15 / 25 is correct bearing registration number as VARICORO6N74J18232 and addressed as 9-22 Sector 12, Plot 10, Vardhman Pocket 7, Dwarka.
10.5 A careful perusal of evidence adduced by the parties show that damage to the insured vehicle is not disputed. It is not disputed that insured vehicle was not insured with the defendants on the date of mishap. In order to succeed in its claim for Insured Declared Value (IDV) of Rs. 7,65,000/- the plaintiff was to prove that total loss of the insured vehicle has occurred which means that the insured vehicle is completely destroyed or damaged beyond repair, meaning it cannot be restored to its pre-loss condition. A constructive total loss, on the other hand, could be shown by bringing on record that the cost of repairing the damaged vehicle exceeds as per the present contract 75% of the insured value, making it economically impractical to repair.
10.6. In the present suit, the plaintiff has not led any shred of evidence to show constructive total loss because the estimates submitted along with the plaint have been marked documents and the plaintiff did not examine any of the repairs workshops to establish its credibility.
10.7. The defendants' insurance company has in rebuttal tendered and relied upon the Final Report of the surveyor dated 13.03.2020 Ex RW-1/3 which has concisely given the entire gamut of the case CS(COMM)719/2022 M/s. Pannu Car Rentals (P) Ltd. vs. M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Page No. 16 / 25 as under: -
9. REMARKS & RECOMMENDATION :
In pursuance of the instructions received from your office on 21.10.2019, our representative visited the workshop of M/s Treo Go Auto Pvt Ltd, Okhla, Delhi on the next day. The estimates of repairs replacements amounting to Rs.4,78,147/- towards labour charges plus cost of parts valued at Rs. 36,69, 763/-totaling in all to Rs. 41,47,911/- were scrutinized item wise with the damages observed on the accidental vehicle but the claim could not be finalised there and then as it was observed during scrutiny of the estimates that the same were drawn quoting body shell and also it's child parts, which made the estimated amount to be exceptionally high. Also, none of the documents i.e. completed claim form, RC, DA, Insurance policy, Permit etc were available at the time of survey. The repairer's representative was then told that we would get back to them after chalking out the underwriter's tentative liability and when we receive the relevant documents from the insured. We wrote a registered reminder Dt. 23.10.2020 to the insureds o submit the required documents. Later, in reply to our reminder, the insured's representative visited our office on 30.10.2020 and submitted claim form, R/C, Authorisation, Fitness, Insurance Policy, photocopy of DDR FIR., D/I, MLC of the insured, PanCard and cancelled cheque. As original DDR/FIR was required and also discharge/satisfaction voucher, towing receipt, GST registration number were still pending. The same were received on 04.11.2020. After scrutinising the estimates, it was confirmed that as the body shell needn't be replaced on the subject vehicle, the liability of the underwriters was drawn considering child parts of the body shell and it was observed that the same was nearing, 75% of the I.D.V. but was below the limit and was repairable. A rough assessment was drawn which then came to app. Rs.4,65.000/- The matter was then discussed with the repairer's representative when he stated that the repairs liability may exceed 75% of the IDV as some more damages may come to light after disnamling. thus increasing the liability of the underwriters beyond 75%. However, we thought otherwise. We kept pushing for repairs but the insured's representative and the repairer's representative kept advocating for settlement on TOTAL LOSS BASIS. The matter was then discussed at the underwriter's office and the competent authority then suggested us for a joint meeting at the workshop with repairer's representative and the insured's representative.
Accordingly, a meeting was fixed for 18.02.2020 for the workshop and the three of us met and discussed the case at length. In that meeting, principally it was agreed by the repairer's representative that they would repair the subject vehicle using child parts of the body shell and also that the repair CS(COMM)719/2022 M/s. Pannu Car Rentals (P) Ltd. vs. M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Page No. 17 / 25 liability may not cross 75% of the I.D.V. The insured's representative Mr. Ghanshyam present at the time of discussions also agreed to have the vehicle repaired. Still to put it on record, we mailed to the repairer's representative to let us know the tentative liability, vide our mail Dt. 18.02.2020. When we did not receive any response from the repairers, we sent reminders Dt. 28.02.2020 & 02.03.2020 over mail. In shared the tentative repair liability by attaching the estimates and parts highlighted there-in, which were to the tune of 17, 27,438/-. In reply to the said mail, we wrote back to the repairers pointing out that they have been intentionally delaying settlement of the claim by not starting to repair the subject vehicle and have been willfully trying to escalate the repairs liability by considering many parts whish don't even need repairs / were not even damaged, in order to enhance the repair liability to project the claim to be a case fit for settlement on TOTAL LOSS BASIS. As the claim is lying pending since a long time, we are submitting our independent report as per the assessment appended here-below which is subject to the final approval of the underwriters and admission of liability by them and also less as per policy clause. The underwriters may deal with the claim as deem fit.
Summary of Assessment (details of assessment attached herewith) Estimated amount in Rs. Assessed Amount in Rs.
A. Glass Parts 18,471.68 8,651.52 B. Metal Parts 2,377,093.12 275,564.80 C. Non Metal Part 1,274,199.04 63,018.24 D. Labour Charges 478,147.21 34,220.00 Total Amount 4,147,911.05 4,81,454.56 Less: Scrap Value of Salvage 13,778.24 Less: Policy Excess Clause 1000.00 Net Liability 4,147,911.05 466,676.32 Net Liability: Rs. 466,676.00 (Rounded off)
10.8 Before proceeding further, it is relevant to mention here that the surveyors are appointed by the Insurance Company under the provisions of the Insurance Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015 and the insured party should give sufficient grounds to agree or to disagree with such an assessment made by the surveyor. The appointment of the surveyor done as per the act and regulations CS(COMM)719/2022 M/s. Pannu Car Rentals (P) Ltd. vs. M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Page No. 18 / 25 made under the Act.
10.9. In case of Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, in the case of Suresh Kumar Sharma Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in III (2021) CPJ 79 (NC), held as under :-
"11. Main issue relates to the quantum of loss. Surveyor appointed by the Insurance Company assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.2,96,446.99 and the Complainant filed claim for Rs.7,60,000/-, on the basis of estimate given by Pink City Motors Pvt. Ltd. Surveyor was appointed by the Insurance Company, who visited and inspected the place of incident and thereafter gave his report. Report submitted by a Surveyor is an important piece of evidence and it has to be given due weight, though it is not sacrosanct and can be ignored, provided there is cogent evidence otherwise. In the present case, the Complainant did not lead any evidence disproving the report submitted by the Surveyor of the Insurance Company. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the report submitted by the Surveyor of the Insurance Company is to be accepted. Whatever relief the Complainant was entitled, has already been given by the State Commission."
10.10 In the case of Sikka Papers Limited vs. National Insurance Company Limited and Others, (2009) 7 Supreme Court Cases 777, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that it is true that the surveyor report is not the last word, but there must be legitimate reason for departing from such report. If the complainant has failed to show any reason to justify the rejection of the surveyor report; no infirmity is found in the order.
10.11. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Khatema Fibres Ltd., Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & anr., reported in IV (2021) CPJ 1 CS(COMM)719/2022 M/s. Pannu Car Rentals (P) Ltd. vs. M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Page No. 19 / 25 (SC), held that once it is found that there was no inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance of the duties and responsibilities of the surveyor, in a manner prescribed by the Regulations as to their code of conduct and once it is found that the report is not based on adhocism or vitiated by arbitrariness, then the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum to go further would stop.
10.12 Reverting to the present case, the defendants insurance company appointed an Independent Licensed Surveyor to verify the claims of the plaintiff with respect to the alleged repair estimates. The independent licensed surveyor vide its "FINAL MOTOR SURVEY REPORT" dated 13.03.2020 Exhibit RW1/3 states that it scrutinized the item wise repair estimate as offered by the plaintiff and noticed the same to be "exceptionally high". The surveyor further confirmed the stand of the defendant that few vehicle parts as alleged to be damaged by the plaintiff need not be replaced including the body shell and after considering damaged child parts of the body shell, the damages and repair shall have the estimated cost less than 75% of the Insured Declared Value of Rs. 7,65,000/-. The Surveyor in the report after considering the estimates has assessed/approved an amount of Rs. 4,66,676/- for the repairs after giving elaborate reasoning in paragraph 9.
10.13 The issue of repairs was further discussed amongst the Licensed Surveyor, repairer's representative and the plaintiff's CS(COMM)719/2022 M/s. Pannu Car Rentals (P) Ltd. vs. M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Page No. 20 / 25 representative in a joint meeting dated 18.02.2020. In the aforementioned meeting the attendees agreed that the parties will proceed with the repair of the vehicle using the child parts of the body shell. This was duly acknowledged by the plaintiff's representative who stated that he would initiate with the repair procedure. The plaintiff throughout the procedure contested the insured vehicle to be declared as "Total Loss". The Licensed Surveyor sent multiple reminders to the plaintiff requesting the status of the repairs including email dated 19.03.2020.
10.14. From the beginning, even though not proved in the present proceedings, the estimates repairs of the damaged vehicle as obtained by the plaintiff from two workshops i.e. Tata Trego-go Auto PVT. Ltd. and Auto Vikas Sales & Services were subject of dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant insurance company. After referring to the aforesaid estimates from the aforementioned workshops, the plaintiff contended that the vehicle has been "Total Loss" because the repair estimates being more than 75% of the Insured Declared Value (IDV) of Rs. 7,65,000/- (as per the insurance policy). On the contrary, the defendant insurance company after thorough scrutiny of the repair estimates submitted by the plaintiff through its Authorized and Licensed Surveyors concluded that the damages and repair shall have the estimated cost less than 75% of the Insured Declared Value of Rs. 7,65,000/- thus vehicle cannot be declared as "Total Loss". The defendants declared the vehicle to be repairable and CS(COMM)719/2022 M/s. Pannu Car Rentals (P) Ltd. vs. M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Page No. 21 / 25 asked the plaintiff to proceed with the accepted repairs. The surveyor in the report after considering the estimates has assessed/approved an amount of Rs. 4,66,676/- which is self explanatory and there is no reason to disbelieve said report in absence of any evidence to contrary.
10.15 In case of Sri Venkateshwar Syndicate v/s Oriental Insurance Company Limited & Anr, (2009) 8 SCC 507 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held:-
31. The assessment of loss, claim settlement and relevance of survey report depends on various factors. Whenever a loss is reported by the insured, a loss adjuster, popularly known as loss surveyor, is deputed who assess the loss and issues report known as surveyor report which forms the basis for consideration or otherwise of the claim. Surveyors are appointed under the statutory provisions and they are the link between the insurer and the insured when the question of settlement of loss or damage arises. The report of the surveyor could become the basis for settlement of a claim by the insurer in respect of the loss suffered by the insured.
32. There is no disputing the fact that the Surveyor/Surveyors are appointed by the insurance company under the provisions of Insurance Act and their reports are to be given due importance and one should have sufficient grounds not to agree with the assessment made by them. We also add, that, under this Section the insurance company cannot go on appointing Surveyors one after another so as to get a tailor made report to the satisfaction of the concerned officer of the insurance company, if for any reason, the report of the Surveyors is not acceptable, the insurer has to give valid reason for not accepting the report. Scheme of Section 64-UM particularly, of sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) would show that the insurer cannot appoint a second surveyor just as a matter of course. If for any valid reason the report of the Surveyor is not acceptable to the insurer may be for the reason if there are inherent defects, if it is found to be arbitrary, excessive, exaggerated etc., it must specify cogent reasons, without which it is not free to appoint second Surveyor or Surveyors till it gets a report which would satisfy its interest. Alternatively, it can be stated that CS(COMM)719/2022 M/s. Pannu Car Rentals (P) Ltd. vs. M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Page No. 22 / 25 there must be sufficient ground to disagree with the findings of Surveyor/Surveyors. There is no prohibition in the Insurance Act for appointment of second Surveyor by the Insurance Company, but while doing so, the insurance company has to give satisfactory reasons for not accepting the report of the first Surveyor and the need to appoint second Surveyor.
10.16. In the instant case, report of the surveyor Ex.RW1/3 cannot be brushed aside and cannot be rejected. In consideration of the above, the claim of the plaintiff is restricted to Rs.
4,66,676/- as approved and accessed by the surveyor vide report dated 13.03.2020.
10.17. Adverting to the claim of compensation of Rs. 2.0 lakhs as damages claimed by the plaintiff, it is well settled proposition of law that loss must be proved by the party by leading evidence in order to claim damages. The damages or loss incurred is also sine qua non and prerequisite for grant of damages or loss caused due to inaction by the defendant. Admittedly, in the instant suit, the plaintiff has not led any evidence in support of claim of compensation of Rs. 2.0 lakhs as damages, accordingly, prayer in this regard stands rejected.
10.18. In summation, the plaintiff is entitled only for a sum of Rs. 4,66,676/- from the defendants insurance company. The issue no. 1 is accordingly decided.
Issue no.2-
11. Considering the nature of dispute between the parties being CS(COMM)719/2022 M/s. Pannu Car Rentals (P) Ltd. vs. M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Page No. 23 / 25 commercial, this Court feels interest can be granted @ 6% per annum which would meet the ends of justice. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff is entitled for suit claim i.e. 4,66,676/- along-with pendente lite and future simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of institution of suit till its realization. Issue no.2 is accordingly decided in favour of plaintiff.
Issue no.3-
12. The issue no. 3 is regarding the jurisdiction of this court. The onus to prove this was upon the defendant but merely it has been stated that because the accident occurred at Chandigarh thus this court has no jurisdiction. However, it is pertinent that the evidence in this case has been filed by Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Manager, Regional Office M/s. United India Insurance Company Ltd., Claim Hub 8th Floor, Kanchenjunga Building, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. The defendant carries it business in the jurisdiction of this court hence this issue is decided against the defendants. Issue no.3 is accordingly decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants.
Relief
13. In view of the findings given in Issue no.1 and 2, the suit of the plaintiff is partly decreed. The plaintiff is entitled to as sum of Rs. 4,66,676/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till its realization along with costs.
CS(COMM)719/2022 M/s. Pannu Car Rentals (P) Ltd. vs. M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Page No. 24 / 2514. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
15. File be consigned to record room. Digitally signed by VINEETA VINEETA GOYAL Date:
GOYAL 2025.04.30 17:56:25 +0530 Pronounced in the open Court (VINEETA GOYAL) on this 30.04.2025 District Judge (Commercial-03) Patiala House, New Delhi CS(COMM)719/2022 M/s. Pannu Car Rentals (P) Ltd. vs. M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Page No. 25 / 25