National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd vs Pinku Bhai on 21 August, 2015
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 2483 OF 2014 (Against the Order dated 05/03/2014 in Appeal No. 538/2012 of the State Commission Rajasthan) 1. SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT E-8, EPIP ,RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, SITAPUR, THROUGH GENERAL MANAGER, REP THROUGH CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY JAIPUR RAJASTHAN ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. PINKU BHAI S/P SHAMSUDDIN, R/O BALANI STATE KIRTI KUNJ SOCIETY ,HOUSE NO-2,SALAM TOK NAKA AHMEDABAD GUJARAT ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE, PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner : Mr. N.K.Chauhan, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Sitesh Narayan Singh, Advocate
Dated : 21 Aug 2015 ORDER
This revision petition is directed against the order of Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (in short, "State Commission") dated 5.3.2014 whereby State Commission dismissed the appeal No.538 of 2012 preferred by the petitioner/Company and confirmed the following directions issued by the District Forum :-
"Therefore, the complainant filed by Pinkubhai u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the Shriram General Insurance Co.Ltd. is allowed and the opponent is directed to pay 75% of IDV Rs.8.51 lakhs with interest @ 8% from the date of filing of the complaint till realization as compensation for mental agony and harassment and financial losses and Rs.1,000/- as litigation expenses within one month to the complainant."
2. Briefly put facts relevant for the disposal of this revision petition are that the petitioner had insured his Innova Car with the petitioner/opposite party. During the currency of the insurance policy, the vehicle met with an accident resulting in total loss. The insurance claim was filed by the petitioner. Pursuant to the insurance claim, a surveyor was appointed. As per report of the surveyor, it was a case of total loss because the repair cost assessed by the surveyor was more than IDV of the vehicle. The insurance company repudiated the claim on two counts, one that the vehicle was insured as a private vehicle but it was being used for hire and secondly, it was overloaded at the time of accident.
3. The District Forum, Sirohi on consideration of the pleadings and evidence allowed the complaint and relying upon the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Amelanda Sahu Vs. Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., II (2010) CPJ 9 (SC), allowed the claim on non-standard basis and directed the petitioner/insurance company to pay to the petitioner 75% of the IDV of Rs.8.51 lakhs with 8% thereon from the date of filing of the complaint besides a sum of Rs.1,000/- was awarded as litigation charges.
4. Being aggrieved of the order of the District Forum, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the State Commission, Rajasthan. State Commission, however, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the District Forum.
5. Learned Shri N.K. Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner has contended that the impugned order of the foras below suffer from infirmity for the reason that while allowing the insurance claim on non-standard basis taking it to be a case of total loss, the fora below have not given benefit of the cost of salvage to the insurance company. In support of this contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my contention to the report of surveyor who has assessed the value of salvage to be somewhere between Rs.2.5 to 3.00 lakhs. Learned counsel has, thus, submitted that the amount of compensation awarded to the respondent/complainant has to be reduced by the value of salvage.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent/complainant on the contrary argued in support of the impugned order. We have considered the rival contention and perused the record.
7. So far as the merit of the impugned order is concerned, it has not been contested. Only grievance of the petitioner/insurance company is that it has not been given adjustment of the value of the salvage. Since this is a case in which the insurance claim has been settled on total loss basis, the salvage is supposed to be returned to the insurance company or adjustment of the salvage has to be granted to the insurance company. In order to find out the value of the salvage it would be useful to have a look on the relevant portion of the report of the surveyor which reads as under: -
"Regarding salvage offer you have informed salvage buyer but till the body has contacted us. If you are having salvage buyers on your kindly call the salvage buyer and ask for offer. In our opinion approximate salvage value will be Rs.2500000/- to Rs.300000/-. We not confirm with insured."
On reading of the above, it is clear that the surveyor has arbitrarily put the value of Rs.2.5 Lakhs to Rs.3 Lakhs on the salvage without applying any scientific method. Aforesaid value, therefore, cannot be accepted. Otherwise also admittedly I.D.V. of the vehicle is Rs.8.51 Lakhs and as per the assessment of the surveyor the repair of the accidental vehicle including labour charges would have cost Rs.9 Lakhs. From this it is evident that the salvage value by no standard could be between Rs.2.5 Lakhs to Rs.3 Lakhs As there is no other evidence to assist me in fixing the salvage value, only alternative could be to maintain the impugned order so far as amount award is concerned and direct the complainant to handover the salvage to the insurance company.
In view of the discussion above, we partially allow the revision petition and modify the impugned order as under:
The petitioner insurance company is directed to pay to the respondent/complainant 75% of I.D.V. Rs.8.5 Lakhs with 8% interest thereon from the date of filing of the complaint till realization provided the salvage of the accidental vehicle is returned to the petitioner insurance company. In the event of the respondent/complainant failing to return the salvage the basic amount awarded to the complainant shall be reduced by Rs.1 Lakh. The order pertaining to the cost of litigation awarded by the Fora below is maintained.
Revision petition is disposed of accordingly.
......................J AJIT BHARIHOKE PRESIDING MEMBER