State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Manoj Kumar Jain & Anr. on 6 March, 2023
FA NO./523/2015 D.O.D.:06.03.2023
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. MANOJ KUMAR JAIN & ANR.
IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION
Date of Institution: 28.10.2015
Date of Hearing: 16.11.2022
Date of Decision: 06.03.2023
FIRST APPEAL NO.- 523/2015
IN THE MATTER OF
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,
THROUGH ITS DULY CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY,
MANAGER,
REGIONAL OFFICE - 2,
10th FLOOR, CORE 1, SCOPE MINAR,
LAXMI NAGAR, DISTT. CENTER,
DELHI-110092.
(Through: Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocate)
...Appellant
VERSUS
1. MR. MANOJ KUMAR JAIN,
S/o MR. J.D. JAIN,
R/o-10/130, RAJ NAGAR, GHAZIABAD-201002.
(Through: Mr. Sanjeev Nirwani &
Mr. Syed Hasan Isfahani, Advocates)
2. M/s NIMBUS MOTORS PVT. LTD.,
THROUGH ITS DIRECTORS,
SHOP NO. 6, B-108, DUGGAL COLONY,
KHANPUR EXTN., DEVLI ROAD, NEW DELHI-110062.
...Respondents
PARTIALLY ALLOWED PAGE 1 OF 16
FA NO./523/2015 D.O.D.:06.03.2023
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. MANOJ KUMAR JAIN & ANR.
CORAM:
HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
(PRESIDENT)
HON'BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
HON'BLE MR. J. P. AGRAWAL, MEMBER (GENERAL)
Present: Mr. Abhishek Kumar, counsel for the Appellant.
Mr. Syed Mohd. Hasan, proxy counsel for Mr. Sanjeev
Nirwani, counsel for the Respondent no. 1.
None for the Respondent no. 2.
PER: HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
PRESIDENT
JUDGMENT
1. The facts of the case as per the District Commission record are:
"The brief facts of the present complaint are that the Hyundai i10 1.2 L Kappa Car of the complainant with Registration No. UP-14BB-3185 was insured with the Respondent No.I vide Policy No.32160031140100000993 for the period 16/05/2014 to 15/05/2015. It is alleged that the said car met with an accident and was smashed from the front. Upon intimation to the Respondent No.1 and under its instructions, the said vehicle was towed to the workshop of Respondent No.II. In a preliminary survey made by Respondent No.Iit was observed that the engine of the car in question was safe and directions were given to the Respondent No.II for initiating the repairs but on dismantling it, it was found to be totally damaged. Subsequent to the letters dated 16/01/2015 and 22/01/2015 written by the complainant to Respondent No.I with copies to Respondent Nell the complainant was asked to collect the car after making a payment of the bill raised for Rs. 2,21,751/-. The complainant paid Rs.2,21,751/- and took the delivery of the said car. It is alleged that the said car was not repaired properly and this fact was brought to the notice of the respondents in writing. It was submitted to Respondent No.II on PARTIALLY ALLOWED PAGE 2 OF 16 FA NO./523/2015 D.O.D.:06.03.2023 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. MANOJ KUMAR JAIN & ANR.
30/01/2015 and the same was returned to the complainant on 31/01/2015. It is alleged that Respondent No.I vide its Letter dated 13/03/2015replied to the letters of the complainant without adverting to the issues of damage to the car and non- repair raised by the complainant and by relying on the alleged Survey Report. It is further alleged by the complainant that neither the surveyor ever met the complainant nor the copy of the alleged Survey Report was supplied to him. The Complainant alleges that he has not received any reply from Respondent No.II till date to any of his communications. The complainant alleges collusion between the respondents for making less payment to the complainant. The complainant has prayed for directions to the respondents to immediately restore the car to its normal working condition as it was prior to the accident or pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.2,66,000/- with Rs.8,500/- towards towing charges and interest @ 24% p.a. on the said sums from the date of accident till the date of actual payment. He has also prayed for Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for harassment and agony caused to him Rs.1,00,000/- as the cost of this litigation and any other relief of reliefs as the Forum deems fit and proper."
2. The District Commission after taking into consideration the material available on record passed the order dated 08.09.2015, whereby it held as under:
"It is an admitted fact that the Hyundai i10 1.2 L Kappa Car of the complainant with Registration No. UP-1488-3185 which was comprehensively insured with the Respondent No.! vide Policy No.32160031140100000993 for the period 16/05/2014 to 15/05/2015 had met with an accident and Respondent No.I was duly intimated about it and the Respondent No.I has paid to the complainant Rs.1,00,475/- towards the claim lodged by him. The complainant has challenged the disposal of his claim. Now the question that needs to be decided is whether the Respondents are guilty of unfair trade practice or not? In the PARTIALLY ALLOWED PAGE 3 OF 16 FA NO./523/2015 D.O.D.:06.03.2023 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. MANOJ KUMAR JAIN & ANR.
case in hand, it is alleged by the complainant that the Respondent No.I has not provided him a copy of the Survey Report conducted by the surveyor Mr. Navneet K. Goel of "M/s. Navneet & Co," who was appointed by Respondent No.I to assess the loss sustained by the complainant. During the course of arguments it is submitted by the Ld.Counsel for Respondent No.1 that the document titled "Summary of the Bill Check Report" is all that constitutes the Survey Report and there is no distinct Survey Report available with it. This statement of the Ld.CL. for the Respondent No.1 is belied as it is in strict contradiction to the contents of Para 5 of the reply dated 13/03/2015 of the Respondent No.1 to the notice of the complainant, filed on record as Annexure C-6, wherein it is stated that the surveyor had submitted the Survey Report and the Summary of the Bill Check Report to the Respondent No.1. Further, it is also clear from the copy of the letter of Respondent Nol filed on record by the complainant as Annexure C-7 to his rejoinder to the written statement of Respondent No.I that it had received the Survey Report from the Surveyor. From this it is clear that though the Surveyor appointed in the case had submitted the Survey Report to Respondent No.I alongwith the Summary of the Bill Check Report but the Respondent No.1 has intentionally not placed on record the Survey Report and has filed on record only the copy of the Summary of the Bill Check Report. Neither the Respondent No.I has refuted the allegation of the complainant that the Survey Report has not been supplied to him nor it has filed on record any cogent documentary evidence reflecting the fact of supplying the copy of the Survey Report to the complainant. It is also significant to mention here that the Respondent No.1 has not even filed on record the Survey Report alongwith its pleadings in this case before this Forum. Infact, there is not a scintilla of doubt that apprehending the revelation of its involvement in malpractice the Respondent No.I has intentionally chosen not to file on record the Survey Report and had chosen to file on record only the copy of the Summary of the Bill Check Report. In these PARTIALLY ALLOWED PAGE 4 OF 16 FA NO./523/2015 D.O.D.:06.03.2023 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. MANOJ KUMAR JAIN & ANR.
circumstances, we draw an adverse inference against the Respondent No.I that it is guilty of concealment of Survey Report which is a very crucial document in deciding the claim of the complainant. The act of Respondent No.I in holding back of the Survey Report is an attempt to debilitate this Forum from deciding the present complaint in a fair and judicious manner.
Further, in the case in hand, it is alleged by the complainant that under the instructions of Respondent No.I the said vehicle was towed to the workshop of Respondent No.II where a preliminary survey was made wherein it was observed that the engine of the car was safe and it gave directions to Respondent No.II for commencing the repairs. However, upon dismantling it, it was found to be totally damaged. It is pertinent to mention here that the Respondent No.I has neither denied the allegation that acting upon its instructions the complainant had got the said vehicle towed to the workshop of Respondent No.II nor it has specifically denied the fact that it was under the directions given to Respondent No.II that the engine was dismantled for repairs by it. It is significant to mention here that the policy in question was not a cashless policy, so the complainant relying upon the observations of Respondent No.I was bound to get the vehicle repaired to assess the exact loss, which the complainant did in the present case. However, upon dismantling it, when Respondent No.II found it to be totally damaged it was obligatory upon the Respondent No.II to have stalled the repair work commenced by it on the direction of Respondent No.I and it should have intimated this fact to the Respondent No.I prior to undertaking further repairs and should have forwarded a request to Respondent No.I for the appointment of a surveyor to get an estimate of repair costs from the said surveyor to ensure that the repairs it would undertake did not exceed 75% of the IDV in view of the limit laid down in GR 8 of the India Motor Tariff as according to GR8 of the India Motor Tariff a vehicle will be considered to be a Constructive Total Loss where the PARTIALLY ALLOWED PAGE 5 OF 16 FA NO./523/2015 D.O.D.:06.03.2023 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. MANOJ KUMAR JAIN & ANR.
aggregate cost of retrieval and / or repairs of the vehicle subject to the terms and conditions of the policy exceeds 75% of the IDV. There is not an iota of evidence that the Respondent No.II had ever intimated this fact to Respondent No.I and had sought such directions from it prior to initiating further repairs of the vehicle in question. Despite knowledge of this fact that it was a case of total damage, it instead of referring the matter back to the Respondent No.I had started further repairs when it was not equipped with any express sanction for carrying it out from the Respondent No.I. The bill of Rs.2,21,751/- of alleged repairs of the car insured at an IDV of Rs.2,66,000/- clearly reveal that the alleged repairs undertaken by Respondent No.II were major repairs and amounted to about83% of the IDV. Further, it has not been denied by Respondent No.II that the list of persisting defects filed on record as Annexure C-9 have not been submitted to them by the complainant. In the absence of specific denial of the receipt of list of persisting defects by Respondent No.II, we arrive at an inference that the Respondent No.II had accepted the said list of persisting defects from the complainant as the repairs alleged to have been carried out could not put the car back into roadworthy condition. Merely stating that the said vehicle is working properly without substantiating it with any cogent documentary evidence would not suffice. From the above discussion, there is not a scintilla of doubt that the Respondent No.II had not repaired the said car at the first instance as even after alleged major repairs, as is evident from the bill raised by Respondent No.II, it was suffering from several major defects as mentioned in the list of persisting defects. Failure of the complainant to rectify the defects in the said vehicle and to render it roadworthy leaves no room for doubt that the damage to the car was beyond repairs and it was a case of constructive total loss entitling the complainant for the reimbursement of the total IDV of the said car. In fact, the alleged repairs carried out by Respondent No.II for which a fictitious bill of Rs.2,21,751/- was raised were just an eye-wash in collusion with the Respondent PARTIALLY ALLOWED PAGE 6 OF 16 FA NO./523/2015 D.O.D.:06.03.2023 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. MANOJ KUMAR JAIN & ANR.
No.I with sheer motive to restrict the claim of the complainant from being declared a Constructive Total Loss thereby disentitling him to the reimbursement of total IDV of the car from the Respondent No.I and to give a free hand to the Respondent No.I to still further reduce their liability from Rs.2,21,751/- by making further deductions for depreciation which it cannot do if it is declared to be a case of Constructive Total Loss. All the sequel of events get concentrated on one central point that both the respondents were working in connivance with each other to fleece money from the pockets of the insured on the pretext of repairs on one side and disallowing their genuine claims on the other side on one ground or other. It is clear from the constant complaints post- delivery after repairs of the said vehicle that it could not be repaired by Respondent No.II and was posing serious problem in running & its usage. The Respondent No.II on the face of it have failed in carrying out the repairs of the severely damaged vehicle and to make it roadworthy and fit for usage by the complainant. It is hard to understand how in such circumstances a whooping bill of Rs.2,21,751/- could be raised when the vehicle is still in a very bad shape. The Respondent No.I who is responsible, under the policy of insurance, to reimburse the claim under the policy was under an obligation to monitor the repair work done in the vehicle by Respondent No.II and which they have not done and believed that such a cost can be raised for the repairs in the damaged vehicle. This further confirms the connivance between the Respondent No.I and Respondent No. II. The payment which has been made by the complainant to the Respondent No.II under the belief that it shall be reimbursed by the Respondent No.1, thus, needs to recovered by Respondent No. I from Respondent No. II by initiating appropriate action.
With regard to the reimbursement of towing charges of Rs 8,500/- paid by the complainant, it is pertinent to mention here that complainant has failed to place on record the receipt PARTIALLY ALLOWED PAGE 7 OF 16 FA NO./523/2015 D.O.D.:06.03.2023 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. MANOJ KUMAR JAIN & ANR.
of Rs.8,500/- alleged to have been paid by him for getting his car towed from the accident spot to the Workshop of Respondent No.II. The same have been allowed to the extent of Rs.1,500/- by the Respondent No 1. In the absence of the receipt of Rs.8.500/-. the reimbursement of Rs.1,500/-made by the Respondent No.1 towards towing charges, thus, calls for no interference.
Further, the contention of the Respondent No.II that on 19/03/2015 the complainant had taken his car in question to the workshop of Respondent No.II in its Check-up Camp where it was checked and was found OK cannot be accepted in the absence of any credible documentary evidence to substantiate this fact and failure on the part of Respondent No.II to reaffirm these facts on oath by way of affidavit in evidence as mere bald contentions not supported by any convincing documentary evidence are not tenable.
Further, in the absence of any cogent documentary evidence to substantiate the fact that the complainant has accepted the payment of Rs.1,00,475/- towards the full and final settlement of the insurance claim, mere transfer of the amount by Respondent No.I into the bank account of the complainant through NEFT will not estop him from claiming the balance amount under the policy of insurance as mere acceptance of the amount without recording satisfaction note will not act as a hurdle to claiming the balance amount. The filing of a complaint before a Consumer Forum within about one and a half month of the credit of the amount into his bank account amounts to sufficient protest on the part of the complainant against the receipt of the said payment by him to claim the balance amount.
With regard to the contention of territorial jurisdiction raised by Respondent No.I, it is alleged by Respondent No.I that since the complainant resides in Ghaziabad, the policy has been issued from the Ghaziabad Office of Respondent No1 and PARTIALLY ALLOWED PAGE 8 OF 16 FA NO./523/2015 D.O.D.:06.03.2023 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. MANOJ KUMAR JAIN & ANR.
the workshop of the Respondent No.ll is in Ghaziabad, no cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Forum, it has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. It is pertinent to mention here that in the case in hand the claim of the complainant was processed, alleged to have been settled, communicated to the complainant and payment made to him from the Delhi Office of Respondent No.I. As such the cause of action had arisen within the territory of NCT of Delhi and the Consumer Forums at Delhi have the jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. In view of this, the contention with regard to the territorial jurisdiction raised by the Respondent No.l is not tenable.
The Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority, also known as IRDA, should formulate rules making it mandatory for the insurer to supply a copy of the Survey Report against receipt from the insured before making payment under a claim to make the process more transparent and insured friendly and to preclude the harassment of the insured at the hands of the insurer and the insurer should be subjected to punitive costs if it functions in contravention of these rules. Copy of this order be sent to the Chairman, IRDA for necessary action.
Taking the sequel of events and the observations & discussion made supra, there is not a scintilla of doubt that the respondents were working in collusion with each other to thwart the genuine claim of the complainant under the insurance policy. We hold the respondents guilty of unfair trade practice. The collusion between the two respondents which is writ large on the face of it had burdened the complainant not only financially but had subjected him to gruesome harassment for which he needs to be compensated. We direct that Respondent No.I to pay to the complainant Rs.2,66,000/-, the total IDV Value of the said vehicle. The complainant shall hand over the vehicle to the Respondent No.I and shall facilitate the Respondent No.I to get the ownership of the said vehicle PARTIALLY ALLOWED PAGE 9 OF 16 FA NO./523/2015 D.O.D.:06.03.2023 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. MANOJ KUMAR JAIN & ANR.
transferred in the name of the Respondent No.1 The Respondent No.I shall further pay to the complainant the sum of Rs.2,21,751/-which he had paid to Respondent No. II. Out of the said amount. Rs.1,00,475/- shall be adjusted. The Respondent No.I shall be at liberty to recover the amount of Rs.2,21,751/- from Respondent No.II. Each of the respondents shall further pay Rs 25,000/- to the complainant as compensation for the harassment meted out to him and Rs.10,000/- to the complainant towards the cost of litigation thirsted upon him."
3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the District Commission, the Appellant/Opposite Party no. 1 has preferred the present appeal contending that the District Commission has failed to appreciate that the surveyor has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 1,00,475/- which was duly paid to the Respondent no. 1. Further, the counsel contended that there was no deficiency of service on the part of Appellant as the assessment made by the surveyor was acceptable as no contrary evidence or report has been filed on record by the Respondent no. 1 to establish any flaws in the survey report. Pressing the aforesaid contention, the Appellant prayed for setting aside the impugned judgment.
4. The Respondent no. 1, on the other hand, submitted that the additional evidences produced before this Commission cannot be taken into consideration as the Appellant failed to produce the same before the District Commission and further denied all the allegations of the Appellant and submitted that there is no error in the impugned judgment as the entire material available on record was properly scrutinized before passing the said judgment.
PARTIALLY ALLOWED PAGE 10 OF 16 FA NO./523/2015 D.O.D.:06.03.2023
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. MANOJ KUMAR JAIN & ANR.
5. We have perused the material available on record and heard the counsel who appeared on behalf of the parties.
6. The first question for consideration before us that whether this commission is bound to consider this additional evidence attached with the appeal which was not produced before District Commission.
7. To deal with this issue, it is imperative to refer to Order 41 Rule 27 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, wherein it is provided as under:-
"Rule 27- Production of Additional Evidence in Appellate Court.
(1) The parties to an appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary, in the Appellate Court, But if-
(a) the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted, or (aa) the party seeking to produce additional evidence, establishes that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within his knowledge or could not, after the exercise of due diligence, be produced by him at the time when the decree appealed against was passed, or
(b) the Appellate Court requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment, or for any other substantial cause, the Appellate Court may allow such evidence or document to be produced, or witness to be examined. (2) Wherever additional evidence is allowed to be produced by an Appellate Court, the Court shall record the reason for its admission."
8. Further, we deem it appropriate to refer to 'Branch Manager, Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited and Ors. Vs. PARTIALLY ALLOWED PAGE 11 OF 16 FA NO./523/2015 D.O.D.:06.03.2023 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. MANOJ KUMAR JAIN & ANR.
Didwaniya Exim Private Limited and Ors.' reported as I(2020) CPJ407 (NC), wherein, the National Commission, has held as under:
"5. We have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties. Even though a large number of decisions have been cited by the Learned Counsel for either of the parties, but we are of the considered opinion that it is not necessary to go into the decisions cited by the Learned Counsel for the parties for the reason that recently the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Jiten K. Ajmera & Anr. Vs. Tejas Cooperative Housing Society, MANU/SC/0665/2019 : (2019) 6 SCC 128, has held that under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, a party can produce additional evidence at appellate stage. Relevant paragraphs of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment are reproduced below for ready reference:
"3.1 We have perused the application filed by the appellants herein for bringing additional evidence on record, along with documents sought to be produced in the pending appeal before the State Commission. These documents have admittedly come into existence after the appeal was filed before the State Commission. The appellants, therefore, could not have produced the said documents before the District Forum.
3.2 Under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC a party can produce additional evidence at the appellate stage, if it establishes that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within its knowledge, or could not even after the exercise of due diligence, be produced by it at the time when the decree appealed against was passed. 3.3 These documents are of relevance to establish that the appellants are not in a position to obtain the occupancy certificate from MCGM until the unauthorised structures, which are in violation of the approved plans, are removed. In the absence of these documents, the appellants would not be in a position to substantiate their case that they are PARTIALLY ALLOWED PAGE 12 OF 16 FA NO./523/2015 D.O.D.:06.03.2023 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. MANOJ KUMAR JAIN & ANR.
unable to obtain the occupancy certificate and comply with the directions issued by the District Forum.
4. The State Commission was in error by rejecting the application filed by the appellants under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC by merely stating that the documents are "not necessary ". The said order is an unreasoned one. The State Commission must have taken a holistic view of the matter.
5. The National Commission has by the impugned order dated 16-03-2018 affirmed the interim order passed by the State Commission.
6. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the interim order dated 10-12-2015 passed by the State Commission is hereby set aside, as also the impugned order dated 16-03-2018 passed by the National Commission.
7. The Civil Appeal is allowed. The matter is remitted to the State Commission to take the additional documents on record, and decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law. The State Commission is further directed to decide the appeal expeditiously since it is pending since 2013. Ordered accordingly."
6. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jiten K. Ajmera (supra), either of the parties are entitled to produce additional evidence in the Appeal and/or Revision Petition at any stage if it establishes that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence such evidence was not in its knowledge and could not, even after exercise of due diligence, be produced by it at the time when the Consumer Complaint was decided. We, therefore, answer the reference accordingly."
9. Analysis of the Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the settled law reproduced above, leads us to the conclusion that this Commission is empowered to admit fresh or additional evidences submitted by any party only when it is clearly established by the party that such evidence was not within his knowledge or could not, or after PARTIALLY ALLOWED PAGE 13 OF 16 FA NO./523/2015 D.O.D.:06.03.2023 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. MANOJ KUMAR JAIN & ANR.
the exercise of due diligence, be produced by him at the time when Consumer complaint was decided by the Commission having original jurisdiction.
10. Therefore, in the present case, it will have to be ascertained whether the additional evidence produced by the Appellant was not within his knowledge or could not be produced before District Commission after exercising due diligence. However, the Appellant failed to show any reason for the same. Therefore, we are of the view that the additional evidence filed by the Appellant before this Commission cannot be taken into consideration as the same should have been filed/ produced before the District Commission.
11. The next question for consideration before us is whether the District Commission has erred in establishing deficiency of service on the part of Appellant.
12. The counsel for the Appellant submitted that the deductions made by the surveyor was as per the terms and conditions of the policy and the assessed amount of Rs. 1,00,475/- was given to the Respondent no. 1 as full and final settlement of his claim. Per contra, the Respondent no. 1 contended before the District Commission that he had taken the said amount under protest and also, the said amount was directly transferred through NEFT in his bank account. However, perusal of the record before us shows that the Respondent no. 1 was charged with an amount of Rs. 2,21,751/- for the repairs of the alleged car having an Insured Declared Value of Rs. 2,66,000/-. Therefore, it is clear that the Appellant had wrongly settled the claim of the Respondent no. 1 and the said amount was taken under protest.
PARTIALLY ALLOWED PAGE 14 OF 16 FA NO./523/2015 D.O.D.:06.03.2023
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. MANOJ KUMAR JAIN & ANR.
13. Further we find, as the cost of repairs in the said car exceeds the 75% of the IDV and in accordance with the GR8 of the India Motor Tariff, a vehicle will be considered to be a Constructive Total Loss where the aggregate cost of retrieval and / or repairs of the vehicle subject to the terms and conditions of the policy exceeds 75% of the IDV. Additionally, it is undeniable that Respondent no. 2 failed to make the necessary repairs after charging an amount of Rs. 2,21,751/- to get the said vehicle back into road worthy condition. Therefore, in our view, the Appellant in the present case is liable to pay the Insured Declared Value of the aforesaid Car i.e. 2,66,000/- to the Respondent no. 1.
14. From the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to modify the judgment dated 08.09.2015, passed by the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission - East, Saini Enclave, Delhi- 110092 and directed the Appellant to pay the IDV of the said car i.e. Rs.2,66,000/- after deducting an amount of Rs. 1,00,475/- which has already been paid by the Appellant to the Respondent no. 1 through NEFT. Further, the following directions mentioned in the impugned order dated 08.09.2015 with respect to:
a) the transfer of ownership in the name of Appellant and handing over the said vehicle to the Appellant;
b) the compensation and mental agony awarded by the District Commission;
c) the directions regarding the interest which is to be charged upon the decretal amount;
requires no interference and the concerned parties are directed to comply with the said directions within a period of 30 days from the date of present judgment.
PARTIALLY ALLOWED PAGE 15 OF 16 FA NO./523/2015 D.O.D.:06.03.2023
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. MANOJ KUMAR JAIN & ANR.
15. Application(s) pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
16. A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.
17. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this Judgment.
(JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL) PRESIDENT (PINKI) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) (J.P. AGRAWAL) MEMBER (GENERAL) Pronounced On:
06.03.2023 PARTIALLY ALLOWED PAGE 16 OF 16