National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Anil Kumar Rathi vs Icici Lombard General Insurance ... on 11 November, 2025
IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
REVISION PETITION NO. 2640 OF 2024
(Against the Order dated 21.06.2024 in First Appeal No. FA/386/2023 of the State
Commission Haryana)
With
NC/IA/14863/2024 NC/IA/11513/2025 (EXCEMPTION OF FILE TYPED COPIES
OF DOCUMENTS, EXEMPTION FROM DEPOSITE AMOUNT)
Anil Kumar Rathi
S/o Shri Sultan Singh
R/o -Plot No. 330, Second Floor, Sector-15,
Rohtak Road, D-Block, Omaxe City,
Bahadurgarh, District - Jhajjar, Haryana Petitioner (s)
Versus
ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited,
No. 208, Second Floor, Seva Corporate Park,
Heritage City, Sector-25, Gurgaon, Haryana Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE DR. INDER JIT SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN, MEMBER
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sandeep S. Tiwari, Advocate
For the Respondent(s) Ms. Shivani Purohit, Advocate (V.C)
Dated : 11.11.2025
ORDER
1. Heard learned counsel for both sides.
2. The challenge is to the order dated 21.06.2024 of the State Commission in FA/386/2023, vide which the first appeal filed by the respondent Insurance Company herein was partly allowed and order of the District Commission was modified. Earlier, the District Commission allowed the complaint vide its order dated 07.02.2023 of the District Commission with the following directions:
"9. In the upshot of above discussion, and under the facts and circumstances of the present case, we allow the complaint directing the RP/2640/2024 Page 1 of 5 OP to replace the accidental vehicle with a new vehicle of same make and model including registration and insurance as per "Return to Invoice" policy charges or to pay Rs. 15,19,174/-@ 9% interest per annum from the date of this order till actual realization within 45 days along with Rs. 50,000/- as compensation and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 33,000/-. All these directions are to be complied within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the awarded amount will attract the interest @12% per annum. All other reliefs prayed for by the complainant are denied being irrelevant. "
3. In appeal, the State Commission modified the above said order by reducing the amount of Rs.15,19,174/- to Rs.7,78,931/-. The reasoning given by the State Commission is contained in paragraph 13 and 14 of its order, which are reproduced below:
"13. This has led this Commission at final bone of contention of learned counsel for the appellant regarding quantum of amount awarded to complainant by learned District Consumer Commission-Gurgaon. It is contended that: amount of Rs.15,19,174/- with interest has been awarded exaggeratedly. To answer this poser, it is observed that appellant's first surveyor-cum-loss assessor namely Sh. Yogesh Gupta, has evaluated base claim amount at Rs.7,78,931/-as per his report dated 05.09.2021. This has also been observed by learned District Consumer Commission-Gurgaon in Para No. 6 of impugned order. Impugned order dated 07.02.2023, does not recite any fundamental reason or base to award Rs.15,19,174/- to complainant. Once, claim of this magnitude (Rs.15,19,174/-) has been raised by complainant in his complaint, which obviously entails civil and financial consequences for insurer-appellant, then reasons to award this amount of Rs. 15,19,174/- as claimed, should have been there. However, impugned order dated 07.02.2023 does not reflect any reasons on this pedestal, which is a fallacy on the part of learned District Consumer Commission-Gurgaon. This Commission is inclined to accept the contention of learned counsel for appellant-insurer regarding illegality committed by learned District Consumer Commission-Gurgaon while awarding Rs.15,19,174/-, over and above the evaluated base claim amount of Rs.7,78,931/- by first surveyor. This Commission accepts the appellant's first surveyor's evaluation at the level of Rs.7,78,931/- being base claim amount as per his report dated 05.09.2021. In opinion of this Commission, ends of justice would meet to award Rs.7,78,931/- to complainant with interest @ 9% from the date of order (07.02.2023) of learned District Consumer Commission-Gurgaon, till its realization. Impugned order dated 07.02.2023 passed by learned District Consumer Commission-Gurgaon is modified to above extent, by partly allowing this appeal. Amount of RP/2640/2024 Page 2 of 5 Rs. 50,000/- awarded for compensation to complainant and amount of Rs.33,000/- awarded to complainant towards litigation expenses through impugned order 07.02.2023 would remain intact.
14. Insurer-appellant had already deposited Rs:8,11,014/- with Registry of this Commission while filing of this appeal Since impugned order dated 07.02.2023 has been modified by reducing the amount of Rs.15,19,174/- (originally awarded) to Rs.7,78,931/-therefore, the statutorily deposited amount of Rs. 8,11,104/- is hereby ordered to be released to complainant-Anil Kumar Rathi, against proper receipt, identification and verification as per rules. Registry of this Commission is accordingly directed. For satisfaction of any balance claim; complainant is at liberty to enforce execution of this order by adopting appropriate legal recourse."
4. This order of the State Commission has not been challenged by the respondent herein and hence it has become final as far as the respondent is concerned.
5. During the hearing, the counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the insurance policy in question. It is not in dispute that the IDV of the vehicle as per the policy was Rs.8 lacs, and the damage assessed by the first surveyor was Rs.7,78,931/-. However, it is the case of the petitioner that the said policy contains certain add-on features for which even an additional premium has been paid by them. They have drawn our attention to the features of the policy with respect to the Return to Invoice Coverage, which is reproduced below:
"Features of Add-on Covers:
1. Return to Invoice Coverage: Sum Insured under this add-on, determined as the difference between the Insured's Declared Value (IDV) and the total actual expenses incurred towards acquisition of a new vehicle of same make and model, as specified in the on-road price listed by the manufacturer/ dealer upon the occurrence of Total Loss including Theft/ Constructive Total Loss as defined in the Policy.
2. Zero Depreciation Coverage: Zero Depreciation covers only the depreciation on the replaced parts. Consumables and Hydro Static Lock are not covered under Zero Depreciation unless opted as separate add-
on.
RP/2640/2024 Page 3 of 5
6. They further submitted that for this add on feature, they have paid an additional premium of Rs.3600/- out of the total premium of Rs.37,642/-, which is duly reflected in the said Insurance policy. They have also drawn our attention to the affidavit of the first surveyor, which states that the assessed loss crossed 75% of the sum insured of the vehicle and qualifies for constructive total loss, which in turn fulfils the condition for Return to Invoice Claim. The District Commission in its order took note of these clauses of the policy while granting the relief of payment of Rs.15,19,174/-. In this regard, the extract of the relevant paragraph of the District Commission is also reproduced below:
"8. In the present lis, the first surveyor gave the report with remarks as "The claim to be genuine and admissible" and this Commission is of the considered view that the OP had denied the genuine report of the first surveyor arbitrarily and unilaterally which was supported by the affidavit. And we have no reason for not to accept the report of first surveyor of the OP. The complainant took the comprehensive insurance policy with add on feature "Return to Invoice" but now at the time of disbursing the claim amount, the OP/insurance company made/dragged the insured into unnecessary litigation. If it was to be the routine practice, then, the common man (insured) will surely loose his faith in the insurance industry.
It is also pertinent to mention here that the report of the first surveyor Mr. Yogesh Gupta, IRDA Licensed Surveyor was supported by this affidavit as Ex. C-9, that this assessment had crossed 75% of the sum insured of the vehicle, and thus, had become qualified for the constructive total loss, whereas, the OP has not placed on the record any affidavit of 2nd surveyor in support of the survey report, which was arbitrary and satisfied the OP's interest"
7. The State Commission, in paragraph 13 of its order, states that the impugned order dated 07.02.2023 of the District Commission does not reflect any reason on this pedestal, which is a fallacy on the part of the District Commission. However, this observation of the State Commission is prima facie not correct, as the District RP/2640/2024 Page 4 of 5 «> Commission in paragraph 8 of its order, which is reproduced above, has clearly given the reasons for awarding Return to Invoice Value.
8. During the hearing, the counsel for the respondent Insurance Company could not give any satisfactory answer as to why the Insurance Company should not be made liable to Return to Invoice Value .Clause when it is a case of total constructive loss, being above 75% of the IDV.
9. After careful consideration of the orders of the State Commission, District Commission, other relevant records, and the rival contentions of the parties, we are of the considered view that the State Commission erred in modifying a well- reasoned order of the District Commission, which was in accordance with the policy coverage clause. Hence, the order of the State Commission modifying the order of the District Commission with respect to the amount of the claim cannot be sustained. Hence, the order of the State Commission is set aside and the order of the District Commission is restored.
10. RP/2640/2024 is allowed in terms of the above said order.
11. Pending lAs, if any, also stand disposed off.
1
Sd/-
( DR.INDER JIT SINGH) PRESIDING MEMBER Sd/-
I
'( DR.' SUDHIR KUMAR J AIN J.)
' MEMBER I
Babita/Court-3/AB/08
RP/2640/2024 Page 5 of 5