State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Kanika Gupta vs New India Assurance Company Limited on 4 June, 2021
Additional Bench
(Remand)
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.
Consumer Complaint No.645 of 2019
Date of institution: 29.08.2019
Reserved on : 01.06.2021
Date of decision :04.06.2021
Mrs. Kanika Gupta W/o Mr. Anuj Gupta, resident of 262 A, Aggar
Nagar, Ludhiana, Punjab.
......Complainant
Versus
New India Assurance Company Limited, Jagraon Branch, Tehsil Road,
Karnail Gate Muhala, Jagraon, Punjab 142026. E-mail: nia-
[email protected].
....Opposite Party
Consumer Complaint under Section 17 (1)(a)
(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, President
Mr. Rajinder Kumar Goyal, Member
1) Whether Reporters of the Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No
2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No
3) Whether judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No Argued by:-
For the complainant : Sh. Sachin Ohri, Advocate
For the opposite party : Sh.Vinod Gupta, Advocate
........................................................................ JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL, PRESIDENT:
Earlier this complaint was allowed exparte by this Commission, vide order dated 05.12.2019. The opposite party C.C. No.645 of 2019 2 challenged that order before the Hon'ble National Commission by way of filing First Appeal No.246 of 2020; which was partly allowed vide order dated 27.11.2020, which reads as follows:-
"6. Based on the above discussion, we partly allow the appeal no.246 of 2020 and the insurance company is first directed to pay Rs.13,50,754/- to the complainant. Learned counsel for the insurance company states that this amount of Rs.13,50,754/- was already deposited by them with the State Commission and this amount along with accrued interest may be released to the complainant. Accordingly, the State Commission is directed to release the amount of Rs.13,50,754/- along with accrued interest to the complainant within a period of 30 days. Further, the complainant is praying that report of the surveyor is not correct and that the complainant is entitled to the total IDV and this is a case of constructive total loss. As the insurance company has now joined the proceedings, their point of view may also be considered by the State Commission. They are allowed to file the written statement within a period of 30 days from today before the State Commission with copy to the complainant. The State Commission shall proceed further and decide the complaint as per the provisions of law for any additional amount payable to the complainant."
In compliance with above order of the Hon'ble National Commission, the OP filed the written reply. Therefore, we proceed to decide the complaint in view of the aforesaid directions of the Hon'ble National Commission.
M.A. No.1776 of 2019 (for interim relief)
2. This application has been filed by the complainant alongwith complaint for directions to opposite party to clear the parking/demurrage C.C. No.645 of 2019 3 charges of the Audi Raipur Service Centre and keep the scrap of the insured vehcle in its own safe custody.
3. Heard.
4. We have perused the record and find that the same prayer has been made by the complainant in the prayer clause of the complaint as such there is no need to decide this application separately. Accordingly, this application is disposed off.
Main case
5. The complainant has filed this complaint, under Section 17(1)(c)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, (in short the "Act") seeking following directions to the opposite party (in short "OP"):-
(i) to pay Rs.30,50,000/- alongwith interest @18% per annum from the date of loss upto the date of payment towards the insurance claim;
(ii) to pay Rs.2,00,000/- for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by OP;
(iii) to pay Rs.2,00,000/- for mental agony/harassment;
(iv) to direct OP to bear the cost of parking/demurrage charges of the insured vehicle during pendency of the complaint;
(v) to pay litigation cost of Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant.
Facts of the Complaint:-
6. Brief facts of the complaint are that complainant erstwhile known as 'Kanika Garg' and after her marriage she adopted the surname of her husband i.e. 'Gupta'. The complainant is the owner of C.C. No.645 of 2019 4 Audi A6, bearing registration number PB-10-EP-0012, which was insured by New India Assurance Company Limited, Jagraon Branch Office (Punjab), vide policy No.36110131180100004320, Ex.C1-A, for the period from 03.02.2019 to 02.02.2020 and the IDV of the vehicle is Rs.30,50,000/-. On 29.05.2019, the said insured vehicle met with an unfortunate accident at Raipur and got significantly damaged. The complainant intimated the OP about the accident. She raised the claim for indemnification of loss suffered. The accidental vehicle was shifted to the authorized service centre of Audi at Raipur and the repair estimate to the tune of Rs.31,58,663/- was prepared by it, vide Annexure C-2. The OP appointed a Surveyor Mr. Gagan Chopra for investigation of the case and to assess the cost of repair of the said vehicle. The complainant provided him all the documents and also completed all the formalities, but the claim has not been paid by OP on one pretest or another. On 19.06.2019, OP sent an email to the complainant, wherein it arbitrarily assessed its liability to the tune of Rs.13,50,753/- only without mentioning any reason, vide Annexure C- 3, whereas the Audi authorized service centre at Raipur assessed the value of repair to the tune of Rs.31,58,663/-, which is even more than the IDV of the vehicle. On 28.06.2019, the complainant through her husband sent an email to OP, Annexure C-4, to provide the policy wordings, Surveyor report, claim number and claim registration date for the insurance claim and requested to settle the claim, as constructive total loss, because the repair cost of vehicle was more than 75% of the IDV. On 10.07.2019, the complainant came to know that OP's Surveyor C.C. No.645 of 2019 5 had illegally instructed the authorized service centre to dismantle the insured vehicle and to start the repair work without any intimation to her. She wrote an email dated 11.07.2019, Annexure C-5, to the authorized service centre not to get involved in any such action on the insured vehicle. The role of the Surveyor is to investigate the claim, inspect the vehicle, assess the loss and submit his report, as per his findings. He is neither responsible nor entitled to take decision regarding the disposal/repair of the accidental vehicle. On 12.07.2019, OP sent an email to her (Annexure C-6), in which it shared a word file titled 'Loss Assessment' and policy wordings of the insurance policy and the printout of the same are Annexure C-7. The file was neither signed by the Surveyor nor t h e s a m e b e a r s his stamp. Even while sending this email, OP did not disclose/share copy of the Surveyor report, claim number and claim registration date of the claim etc. The said sheet made the assessment of aggregate repair cost as follows:
Assessed repair amount (Metal parts) Rs.2,24,380/- Assessed repair amount (rub/plastic) Rs.22,26,964/-
Assessed amount (labour) Rs.85,986.60
Aggregate assessed repair cost Rs.25,37,330.60
After calculating the repair cost, OP arbitrarily applied 'depreciation' on various metal and rubber parts in violation of insurance policy, GR-8 of the Indian Motor Tariff and law laid down under various judgments. Several vehicle parts requiring repair/replacement and labour cost under several heads were arbitrarily left out even in this loss assessment without any basis. Surveyor's assessment suffered from number of illegalities and irregularities. On 17.07.2019, she issued C.C. No.645 of 2019 6 legal notice, Annexure C-8, through her counsel demanding consideration of the case as constructive total loss, as per the insurance policy, GR-8 of the Indian Motor Tariff. She also mentioned in it that the assessment of repair cost given by the authorized service centre as well as company's Surveyor is above 75% of the IDV of the insured vehicle, therefore, this is an undisputable case of constructive total loss. On 20.07.2019, she received a reply from OP, vide Annexure C-9, wherein it refused to settle the case as constructive total loss (in short "CTL") and also sent motor (final) survey report of Surveyor Sh. Gagan Chopra (Annexure C-10). OP mentioned in its reply to legal notice that the loss assessment by the Surveyor was Rs.13,50,753/-, which is factually incorrect. The OP had concealed the actual assessed loss, as per Surveyor i.e. Rs.25,37,330/- as referred above. The final assessment and net liability can be assessed only after repair, re-assessment and submission of original bills. Surveyor of OP disallowed the claim for certain metal and rubber parts in his report without any logical basis. As per terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the insured vehicle shall be treated as a CTL, if the aggregate cost of retrieval and/of repair of the vehicle, subject to terms and conditions of the policy, exceeds 75% of the IDV of the vehicle. IDV shall be treated as the 'Market Value' throughout the policy period without any further depreciation for the purpose of total loss/constructive total loss claims. As per terms of policy, OP has to consider the IDV and cannot apply depreciation on the same, because the repair estimate given by the authorized service centre as well as C.C. No.645 of 2019 7 company's own Surveyor are both above 75% of the IDV of the insured vehicle. The provisions of Indian Motor Tariff are binding on all insurance companies and any breach of the tariff is considered as breach of the provisions of the Insurance Act, 1938. She has alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs for not settling her insurance claim on the basis of constructive total loss, as per GR8 of Indian Motor Tariff. Hence, the complaint. Defence of the Opposite Party
7. In its written reply, OP raised preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable, as there are number of disputed facts which cannot be decided by way of summary procedure and the only remedy is the Civil Court if so desired by the complainant. The present complaint is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary party. On merits, it is averred that the complainant has not produced the complete insurance policy. The complainant has not produced any document with regard to the accident. The repair estimate produced by the complainant is exaggerated, whereas the Surveyor assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.13,50,753/-. The Surveyor, who is an independent person and appointed by the IRDA having special knowledge assessed the loss as per the guidelines issued by the IRDA and everything has been explained in the Survey Report, because the vehicle is an old and there is depreciation on the number of items and some items are also not be even to be allowed and payable. It is further averred that with the consent of the complainant, authorized service centre started with the repair of the vehicle. No question arises C.C. No.645 of 2019 8 of any kind of pressure over the dealer, because no one's personal interest lies in the present matter at hand and the Surveyor has no business to impose any pressure on the authorized service centre and even primarily the estimate given is not binding, rather it is the complainant who was putting pressure to settle the claim as "full loss". Depreciation is not arbitrary but has been calculated as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and nothing has been left out arbitrarily and only those items have been allowed, which are permissible under the policy. The Surveyor is not an employee of the Insurance Company, but the licensed personnel from the IRDA, which is a statutory body, who regulates the Insurance Sector in the country. The OP admitted that it received a legal notice, but the claim of the complainant was exaggerated and against the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The OP sent reply to the same, as per law and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It is further averred that IRDA is the regulating authority and Insurance Company issues a policy as per instruction of IRDA and the conditions of the insurance policy are also approved by the IRDA. The Surveyor has assessed the loss as Rs.13,50,753/-, which is much less than 75% of the IDV and therefore, the loss cannot be considered as a total loss. The case of the complainant has been decided by the company as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and the Surveyor assessed the loss according to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The complainant wants to take undue benefit out of this accident and wants the IDV of the vehicle as "total loss", which is C.C. No.645 of 2019 9 against the insurance policy. It is the callous attitude of the complainant herself and not of the OP due to which the vehicle is still lying with the workshop of Audi. The OP controverted the other averments of the complainant and prayed for dismissal of the complaint by denying any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on its part.
Evidence of the parties
8. To prove her claim, the complainant filed her affidavit along with copies of documents i.e. registration certificate of said vehicle Ex.C-I, policy schedule-cum-certificate with terms and conditions Ex.C-1/A, passport of complainant and RC of vehicle Ex.C-1 (colly), Full Estimate Report-Main Estimate dated 30.05.2019 Ex.C-2, emails exchanged between complainant and OP Ex.C-3 (colly), letters dated 28.06.2019 Ex.C-4, email dated 10.07.2019 Ex.C- 5, email dated 12.07.2019 Ex.C-6, loss assessment Ex.C-7, legal notice dated 17.07.2019 Ex.C-8, reply to legal notice dated 19.07.2019 Ex.C-9, Survey Report dated 18.07.2019 Ex.C-10, GR-8 Ex.C-11 and judgment of this Commission dated 28.03.2014, judgment of Telangana State Commission dated 17.04.2017, judgment of U.T. State Commission dated 05.06.2014 Ex.C-12 and discharge summary of complainant Ex.C-13.
9. The OP alongwith its written reply filed affidavit of Deepshikha, Manager and copy of insurance policy Annexure R-1 and copy of Survey Report dated 18.07.2019 Annexure R-2.
C.C. No.645 of 2019 10Contentions of the Parties
10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties through video conference and also gone through the written arguments of the complainant and record of the case.
11. Learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that as per the policy, the IDV of insured vehicle is Rs.30,50,000/-. On 29.05.2019, the insured vehicle met with an accident at Raipur and got damaged. Intimation of the accident was given to OP and claim was lodged. The accidental vehicle was shifted to the authorized service centre of Audi at Raipur and repair estimate to the tune of Rs.31,58,663/- was raised by the authorized service centre of Audi, vide Ex.C-2. OP appointed a Surveyor, Mr. Gagan Chopra, for investigation of the case and to assess of the cost of repair of the said vehicle. On 19.06.2019, OP sent an email to complainant assessing its liability to the tune of Rs.13,50,753/-, vide Ex.C-3. The complainant sent letter to OP, vide Ex.C-4 (colly) for providing documents/report and requested to settle the claim on the basis of constructive total loss, because the repair cost of vehicle was more than 75% of the IDV of the insured vehicle. OP's Surveyor had illegally instructed the authorized service centre to dismantle the insured vehicle and to start the repair work without any intimation to her. OP sent the assessment of aggregate repair cost to the tune of Rs.25,37,330.60. Learned counsel for complainant strongly contended that OP arbitrarily applied 'depreciation' on various metal and rubber parts in violation of insurance policy, GR-8 of the Indian Motor Tariff and law laid down in C.C. No.645 of 2019 11 various judgments. On 20.07.2019, OP refused to settle the case as constructive total loss and also sent motor (final) survey report of Surveyor Gagan Chopra (Ex.C-10), which is being contested by the complainant. Learned counsel further argued that as per terms of policy, OP has to consider the IDV and cannot apply depreciation on the same, because the repair estimate given by the authorized service centre as well as company's own Surveyor are both above 75% of the IDV of the insured vehicle. Learned counsel further contended that GR-9 deals with the depreciation on part for partial loss, whereas the claim of the complainant falls under the GR-8 of Indian Motor Tariff. During arguments, he further contended that OP is also liable to pay the parking/demurrage charges of the parking of the vehicle, which is still lying in the service centre of Audi at Raipur in accidental condition. Learned counsel prayed for acceptance the complaint.
12. Learned counsel for OP argued to the contrary on the similar lines as averred in the written reply that the complainant has not produced any document in regard to the accident and the repair estimate produced by her is exaggerated, whereas the Surveyor assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.13,50,753/-. The Surveyor, who is an independent person and appointed by the IRDA having special knowledge assessed the loss as per the guidelines issued by the IRDA and everything has been explained by him in the Survey Report. Because the vehicle is an old and there is depreciation on the number of items and some items are also not even to be allowed and payable. With the consent of the complainant, authorized service centre started C.C. No.645 of 2019 12 the repair of the vehicle, as such there is no question of any kind of pressure over the dealer, because no one's personal interest lies in the present matter at hand and the Surveyor has no business to impose any pressure on the authorized service centre and even primarily the estimate given is not binding upon the Surveyor. The complainant put pressure on the OP to settle the claim as "full loss". Depreciation is not arbitrary but has been calculated as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and nothing has been left out arbitrarily and only those items have been allowed, which are permissible under the policy. The Surveyor is not an employee of the Insurance Company, but the licensed personnel from the IRDA, which is a statutory body, who regulates the Insurance Sector in the country. Learned counsel further argued that the Surveyor has assessed the loss as Rs.13,50,753/-, which is much less than 75% of the IDV and therefore, the loss cannot be considered as a total loss. The case of the complainant has been decided by the Company as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and the Surveyor assessed the loss according to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The complainant wants to take undue benefit out of this accident and wants the IDV of the vehicle as "total loss", which is against the insurance policy. Due to adamant act of the complainant vehicle is still lying with the workshop of Audi. Consideration of Contentions
13. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments raised by the learned counsel parties and carefully gone through the evidence on the record.
C.C. No.645 of 2019 13
14. The objection of the complainant is that the loss assessment, Ex.C-7, has not been signed by the Surveyor. It is pertinent to mention that loss assessment Ex.C-7 is only a loss assessment sheet issued by the Surveyor not the report. However, the Surveyor report is Ex.C- 10, which is duly stamped by the said Surveyor and was issued by him on his letter-head. As such, there is no force in this contention of the complainant and the same is rejected.
15. To prove total loss suffered by the vehicle in the accident, the complainant relied upon Ex.C-2, the full estimate report of the vehicle in question dated 30.05.2019 issued by Audi Raipur, G.E. Road, Tatibandh, Raipur-492099, which is an authorized service centre of Audi, wherein the total insurer liability has been calculated as Rs.31,58,663.92, which is more than the IDV of the insured vehicle. Ex.C-3 is the copy of email by OP to complainant assessing the damage to the vehicle as Rs.13,50,753/- on the basis of report of the Surveyor. Vide email dated 20.06.2019, which is the part of Ex.C-3, complainant requested the OP to pay the IDV of Rs.30,50,000/- on account of constructive total loss, as per policy. Ex.C-5 is the copy of email dated 10.07.2019 to Audi Raipur, advising the service centre to dismantle the vehicle and to start the repair work without any intimation to complainant. Vide email Ex.C-6 dated 12.07.2019, OP again assessed its net liability to the tune of Rs.13,50,753/- and on cash loss basis, the liability was assessed to the tune of Rs.7,61,593/-. As per loss assessment sent by OP to complainant, the Surveyor assessed the net loss on repair basis to the tune of Rs.31,40,303/-, but the claim C.C. No.645 of 2019 14 of the complainant was settled under GR.9 of Indian Motor Tariff. Clause 2 of insurance policy Ex.C-1/A itself states that no depreciation will be applicable for the purpose of Total Loss (TL)/Constructive Total Loss (CLT) claims. The complainant also relied upon legal notice dated 17.07.2019 issued to OP for settlement of claim on constructive total loss basis, but OP denied the same vide Ex.C-9.
16. The Surveyor has admitted the fact of accident of the insured vehicle, which occurred on 29.05.2019 during the currency of the policy, in survey report dated 18.07.2019 and the fact of issuance of policy in question for the period from 03.02.2019 to 02.02.2020 is also not in dispute. It is also admitted fact of the case that the OP appointed the Surveyor, who assessed the liability of OP to the tune of Rs.13,50,753/- only under lowest liability. The main grievance of the complainant is that the Surveyor has arbitrarily assessed the liability of the OP to the tune of Rs.13,50,753/- and the same amount was offered to the complainant on the basis of report of Surveyor Ex.C-10. The core point for adjudication in this case before us is whether the vehicle in question suffered total loss or partial loss? From perusal of Surveyor's report Annexure R-2, he estimated the amount of Rs.31,40,303/-, as repair charges and net labour charges. On the other hand, the complainant produced on record the main estimate prepared by the authorized service centre of Audi to the tune of Rs.31,58,663.92, as total insurer liability, but OP contended that this is exaggerated amount, but on the other side OP's own Surveyor also estimated the loss suffered by the vehicle in question to the tune of C.C. No.645 of 2019 15 Rs.31,40,303/- and there is only difference of amount of Rs.18,360.92 paisa. It is pertinent to mention that the OP has failed to explain that how much amount is exaggerated, whereas the estimate prepared by the Surveyor is almost near to the amount of estimate prepared by the authorized service centre of Audi, as such the plea of the OP with regard to exaggerated amount is not tenable. This Commission also held in case "ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kanta Jain" F.A. 134 of 2012, decided on 15.09.2015 that "The estimate is given by the authorized service station (Cargo Motors India Pvt. Ltd.) of Tata Motors and hence we cannot say that the estimate of loss to the vehicle, which was prepared by Cargo Motors Pvt. Ltd., the authorized service station, is liable to be ignored." In view of this, we cannot brush aside the report of authorized service centre of Audi, which is unrebutted on record and there is only estimate of the Surveyor on the record, which is in corroboration of estimate prepared by the authorized service centre of Audi.
17. As per insurance policy Annexure R-1, the Insured Declared Value (in short "IDV") of the vehicle in question is Rs.30,50,000/- and under the heading Sum Insured: Insured's Declared Value of the terms and conditions of the policy, Ex.C-1/A, it has been specifically mentioned that "IDV shall be treated as the 'Market Value' throughout the policy period without any further depreciation for the purpose of Total Loss (TL)/Constructive Total Loss (CTL) claims. The insured vehicle shall be treated as a CTL if the aggregate cost of retrieval and/of repair of the vehicle, subject to the terms and conditions of the C.C. No.645 of 2019 16 policy, exceeds 75% of the IDV of the vehicle." The authorized service centre of Audi has given the estimate for repair including labour charges to the tune of Rs.31,58,663.92 paisa, which remained unrebutted on the record and the Surveyor of OP has also estimated the total cost of repair i.e. Rs. Rs.31,40,303/-. Net loss after deduction has been stated as Rs.13,50,753/- in Surveyor's report. The deductions are not permissible to be deducted to determine the total loss, as per terms of the insurance policy specifically Clause 2 of Ex.C- 1/A as well as GR-8 read with GR-9. In these circumstances, it is clear that the aggregate estimated cost of repair is more than the IDV of the vehicle i.e. Rs.30,50,000/-, as such this is a case of total loss and the IDV is treated as the 'Market Value' throughout the policy period without any further depreciation for the purpose of total loss. Moreover, it is also pertinent to mention that 75% of the IDV comes to Rs.22,87,500/- and generally a person get the estimate to know about the expenses incurred on the repair of the thing and after getting repaired the same, the difference is very small, which can be on higher side or lower side. In view of this, we are of the view that the Surveyor assessed the liability of the under the lowest liability, whereas it is a case of total loss, as discussed above. The OP relied upon the report of Surveyor, but every time the report of the Surveyor is not final one. The Surveyor assessed the loss under GR.9, which is applicable only in partial loss claims. In this case, the OP failed to prove on record that the vehicle in question suffered partial loss in the said accident. The Telangana State Commission in case "M.Thirupathi Reddy Vs. Bajaj C.C. No.645 of 2019 17 Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd." C.C. No.213 of 2015, decided on 17.04.2017 held as under:-
"19. Coming to the report of the Surveyor, it may be stated here, that it is settled principle of law that the same is neither binding on the parties nor the Consumer Foras. Though the report of the Surveyor has got evidentiary value, yet, it cannot be said to be the final word. The Surveyor and Loss Assessor, in his report, could not assign any reason, as to why, he made deductions, in relation to various parts, referred to above, while assessing the loss, when the repair cost was more than 75% of the IDV of the Vehicle. By not declaring the vehicle, as total loss, Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, were certainly deficient, in rendering service."
This Commission in case "Surinder Pal Mittal Vs. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd." F.A. No.730 of 2012, decided on 28.03.2014 held as under:-
"19. The District Forum has relied upon the authority of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 22.07.1983, but the above authority referred by the District Forum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The District Forum has altogether lost sight of the Generation Regulations of India Motor Tariff and the law prevailing at present which provides that where the cost of the repair exceeds 75% of the IDV of the vehicle, then it has to be considered as the total loss."
On the other hand, the OP has not relied upon any law point and authority in support of its contentions. As such, the report of Surveyor Ex.C-10/Annexure R-2 assessing the liability of OP under lowest liability to the tune of Rs.13,50,753.60 paisa is not conclusive one and is not applicable in this case. The OP has wrongly settled the claim of C.C. No.645 of 2019 18 the complainant under GR.9 instead of GR.8 read with Clause 2 of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. As such the above act and conduct of the OP is a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on its part and the complainant is entitled to the amount of IDV i.e. Rs.30,50,000/- in this case alongwith compensation and cost of litigation and due to non-settlement of remaining amount of claim i.e. Rs.16,99,246/-, out of total IDV of Rs.30,50,000/-, the complainant is entitled to the same with interest.
18. The complainant has prayed for interest @18% per annum on the amount of Rs.30,50,000/-. It is pertinent to mention that as per para No.6 of the order dated 27.11.2020, the Hon'ble National Commission partly allow the appeal and the Insurance Company/OP was first directed to pay Rs.13,50,754/- to the complainant and this Commission was also directed to release the amount of Rs.13,50,754/- along with accrued interest. It is pertinent to mention that the amount of Rs.13,65,993/- (including interest) has already released to the complainant by the Registry of this Commission on 19.02.2021 vide cheque No.22204647, as per order of the Hon'ble National Commission. As per our above discussion, the complainant is also entitled to the remaining amount of Rs.16,99,246/- along with interest @7% per annum only from the date of filing the complaint till actual realization. It is also pertinent to mention that due to non-settling of claim on the basis of total loss, the OP is held deficient in service, as such it is liable to pay the parking to authorized service centre of Audi, where the vehicle in question is still parked.
C.C. No.645 of 2019 19
19. As a result of our above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed with the following directions to OP:
(i) to pay remaining amount of insurance claim of Rs.16,99,246/- on account of total loss suffered by the vehicle, as per terms and conditions of the policy and GR.8 of India Motor Tariff to the complainant alongwith interest @7% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till actual realization ;
(ii) to pay the parking charges to the relevant authorized service centre i.e. Audi Raipur;
(iii) to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- for mental harassment as well as litigation expenses;
(iv) The OP is at liberty to take the scrap of the insured vehicle in its custody and complainant is also directed to transfer the RC and other relevant papers as well as to execute the subrogation letter in favour of the OP. The OP must ensure cancellation of certificate of registration of the said vehicle, as per circular No.IRDAI/NL/CIR/MOTOD/ 118/07/2019, dated 25.07.2019 issued by Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India.
The above amounts shall be payable by OP to complainant only if she comply with direction (iv) within 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order, failing which OP shall be liable to pay interest@9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint. C.C. No.645 of 2019 20
20. The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court cases and non-sitting of this Commission due to pandemic of Covid-19.
(JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL) PRESIDENT (RAJINDER KUMAR GOYAL) MEMBER June 04, 2021.
MM