National Consumer Disputes Redressal
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Bhagat Singh on 17 December, 2008
BEFORE THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 103 OF 2005 (From the Order dated 09.11.2004 in Appeal No. 397/2003 of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttranchal, Dehradun) NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. PETITIONER VERSUS BHAGAT SINGH RESPONDENT BEFORE: - HONBLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN, PRESIDENT HONBLE MR. B.K. TAIMNI, MEMBER FOR THE PETITIONER : MR. KISHORE RAWAT, ADVOCATE. FOR THE RESPONDENT: IN PERSON. PRONOUNCED ON : 17.12.2008 O R D E R
ASHOK BHAN J., PRESIDENT The New India Assurance Company Ltd. (herein after referred to as the petitioner for short) petitioner herein has filed this Revision Petition against the Order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttaranchal, Dehradun (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission for short) dated 09.11.2004 in Appeal No. 397/2003 whereby the State Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner-insurance company against the Order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rudraprayag (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum for short) dated 25.04.2003. The District Forum had allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1,62,370/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint.
The facts of the case in brief are:
The maxi cab make Bajaj model 1996 bearing registration No. UP-07C-4043 owned by the respondent was ensured with the petitioner in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- for the period 27.11.2001 to 26.11.2002. The said vehicle met with an accident on 01.03.2002. On the intimation given, the petitioner company initially appointed M/s. R.R. Sharma & Co. for spot survey and, thereafter, Shri Ajay Kumar Arora was appointed for final survey. The perusal of the survey report shows that the Surveyor had assessed the loss on repair basis (repairing liability) at Rs.59,570/-. However, since the market enquiries had revealed that the market value of the vehicle in question was around Rs. 65,000/- and the salvage value was Rs.25,000/-, the Surveyor had recommended the loss on total loss basis at Rs. 40,000/-. On receipt of the report of the Surveyor, the petitioner had written to the respondent-complainant (hereinafter referred to as respondent for short) to furnish the documents and also the discharge voucher duly signed for releasing the payment. The respondent did not accept the offer made by the petitioner and filed a complaint before the District Forum.
Petitioner filed its detailed reply.
District Forum, after taking into consideration the relevant pleadings and evidence led by the parties and the report of the Surveyor, allowed the complaint directing the petitioner to pay Rs.1,62,370/- along with interest @ 9% from the date of complaint. Aggrieved by the Order passed by the District Forum, the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission dismissed the appeal and held that though mode of calculation given by the District Forum was incorrect but the amount awarded was justified. The State Commission worked out the loss after deducting 20% from the sum insured. Being aggrieved by the Order of the State Commission, the petitioner has filed the present petition.
At the outset, we may state that the value assessed by the Surveyor of Rs.40,000/- on total loss basis is clearly unrealistic and cannot be accepted. The petitioner-insurance company after accepting the premium on the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- cannot assess the value of the vehicle on total loss basis at Rs.40,000/-. This matter stands concluded by a Judgment of the Supreme Court of India in Dharmendra Goel v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in 2008 CTJ 917 (Supreme Court) (CP) wherein it has been held that the insurance company after having accepted the value of a particular insured good at the time of insuring the good, cannot disown that very figure on one pretext or the other when they are called upon to pay the compensation. Take it or leave it attitude in such cases is not only unwarranted being bad in law but is ethically indefensible as well. That in such cases, the insurer would be liable to pay the compensation on the insured amount as it had accepted the premium for the same. It cannot be permitted to turn round and say that the value of the vehicle was less than for which it had been insured. In Para 6, it is observed:
6. . It must be borne in mind that Section 146 of the Motors Vehicles Act, 1988 casts an obligation on the owner of that vehicle to take out an insurance vehicle as provided under Chapter 11 of the Act and any vehicle driven without taking such a policy invites a punishment under Section 196 thereof. It is, therefore, obvious that in the light of this stringent provision and being in a dominant position the insurance companies often act in an unreasonable manner and after having accepted the value of a particular insured good disown that very figure on one pretext or the other when they are called upon to pay compensation. This take it or leave it attitude is clearly unwarranted not only as being bad in law but ethically indefensible. We are also unable to accept the submission that it was for the appellant to produced evidence to prove that the surveyors report was on the lower side in the light of the fact that a price had already been put on the vehicle by the company itself at the time of renewal of the policy.
We accordingly hold that in these circumstances, the company was bound by the value put on the vehicle while renewing the policy on 13th February, 2002 .
(Emphasis supplied) The Supreme Court in the said case directed the insurance company to pay the amount for which the vehicle had been insured minus Rs.10,000/- as depreciation as the vehicle had been used for a period of 7 months of the period insured. In the present case, the State Commission has already deducted 20% towards depreciation for use of the vehicle for the period of 4 months.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner- insurance company submitted that as per Surveyors report, the vehicle could be got repaired and the total cost of repair would have come to Rs.59,600/-. That the insurance company could not be asked to pay the insured amount after deducting the amount of depreciation as the vehicle could be got repaired on payment of Rs.59,600/-. The insurance company is prepared to pay the sum of Rs.59,600/- for getting the vehicle repaired. The offer of Rs.40,000/- was made by the respondent in the year 2002. The petitioner-insurance company, at no point of time had offered to get the vehicle repaired. This is for the first time, this offer is being made. The petitioner cannot be permitted to make this offer as an alternative offer after the lapse of six years.
For the reasons stated above, we do not find any merit in this appeal and dismiss the same with costs which are assessed at Rs.5,000/-.
(ASHOK BHAN J.) PRESIDENT ..
(B.K. TAIMNI) MEMBER NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.
PETITIONER VERSUS BHAGAT SINGH RESPONDENT Draft Order in the above matter is sent herewith for your kind perusal. If approved, the same may be listed for pronouncement.
(ASHOK BHAN J.) President 15.12.2008 Honble Mr. B.K. Taimni, Member