State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Kunwar Singh on 17 May, 2023
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND
DEHRADUN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 87 / 2021
United India Insurance Company Limited
Divisional Office, Pithoragarh through its
Regional Office, Ratan Palace, Kaulagarh Road
Dehradun through its Manager
...... Appellant / Opposite Party
Versus
Sh. Kunwar Singh S/o late Dhanesh Chand
through Dashrath P.C.O., R/o Phoolbasti
Post & Tehsil Dharchula, District Pithoragarh
...... Respondent / Complainant
Sh. Suresh Gautam, Learned Counsel for the Appellant
None for Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.S. Tripathi, President
Mr. Udai Singh Tolia, Member-II
Dated: 17/05/2023
ORDER
(Per: Justice D.S. Tripathi, President):
This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 31.03.2021 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pithoragarh (in short "The District Commission") in consumer complaint No. 05 of 2017; Sh. Kunwar Singh Vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, by which the consumer complaint was allowed, directing the appellant - opposite party to the I.D.V. of the vehicle amounting to Rs. 1,80,000/- to the respondent - complainant together with interest @7% p.a. from the date of filing of the consumer complaint till payment; Rs. 5,000/- towards mental agony and Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation expenses.2
2. Facts giving rise to this appeal, in brief, are that according to the consumer complaint, in the year 2011, the respondent - complainant, after taking loan from the bank, had purchased vehicle bearing registration No. UK05-TA-0781 (Maruti Eeco) for the purposes of earning his livelihood. The said vehicle was insured with the appellant - opposite party (insurance company) for the period from 26.12.2014 to 25.12.2015 at an I.D.V. of Rs. 1,80,000/-. During the validity of the insurance policy, on 27.05.2015, the complainant was going by insured vehicle from Dobat to Dharchula. In the way, near Tapowan, suddenly some goats came in front of the vehicle and in order to save the goats, the vehicle went out of control and fell in a ditch, resulting into damage of the vehicle. The complainant could save himself by jumping out of the vehicle. All the documents of the vehicle were valid on the date of accident and the complainant - driver was holding a valid and effective driving licence. F.I.R. of the accident was lodged at P.S. Dharchula and intimation of the accident was also conveyed to the insurance company, whose surveyor visited the spot and found the vehicle as totally damaged. All the requisite documents were submitted with the surveyor of the insurance company. However, the insurance company through letter dated 17.02.2016, repudiated the claim on the ground that the complainant has himself caused damage to the insured vehicle. Thereafter, the consumer complaint was filed by the complainant before the District Commission.
3. The appellant - insurance company filed written statement before the District Commission, wherein it was pleaded that on receipt of intimation of accident of the insured vehicle, Sh. Vijay Kumar Jaiswal, surveyor, loss assessor and investigator, was appointed as surveyor, who submitted his report dated 08.07.2015, who has assessed loss at Rs. 1,20,768/- on net of salvage basis (with R.C.).
3The surveyor has observed that it is a doubtful case, hence investigation may be carried out. Thereafter, the insurance company also appointed Sh. Chandrapal Singh Tomer as investigator, who investigated the matter and submitted his report dated 20.09.2015, thereby concluding that the claim is not payable as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, as the complainant has himself pushed the vehicle into ditch, in order to have wrongful gain, hence the claim was rightly repudiated by the insurance company through letter dated 17.02.2016.
4. After giving opportunity of hearing to the parties, the consumer complaint has been decided by learned District Commission vide impugned judgment and order dated 31.03.2021, thereby allowing the consumer complaint in the above terms. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant - insurance company has preferred the instant appeal.
5. We have heard arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. None appeared on behalf of respondent - complainant, although service of notice upon him has already been held to be sufficient vide order dated 02.08.2022.
6. There is no dispute with regard to the insurance of the vehicle and the same having met with an accident during the currency of the insurance policy. The claim has been repudiated by the insurance company on the ground that the complainant has himself pushed the vehicle into ditch, with an intent to have illegal / wrongful gain from the insurance company. There is no cogent and reliable evidence on record to show that the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy by himself causing damage to the insured vehicle, as has rightly been observed by the District Commission. Even otherwise, it would not be out of place to mention 4 here that the said ground was not agitated / pressed by learned counsel for the appellant - insurance company at the time of arguments.
7. So far as quantum is concerned, the documentary evidence available on record shows that the present case is that of total loss. The vehicle was insured for Rs. 1,80,000/-, which amount has been awarded by the District Commission, without deducting salvage value or holding that the insurance company shall have right over the salvage of the vehicle. The surveyor in his report, while making assessment of loss on net of salvage basis (with R.C.), has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 1,20,768/-, after deducting Rs. 30,000/- towards wreck value / salvage value. However, while arriving at the figure of Rs. 1,20,768/-, the surveyor has taken the I.D.V. of the vehicle as Rs. 1,51,268/-, which can not be said to be justified. It is well settled that the insurance company is bound by the value of the vehicle put in the insurance policy, as the premium is also charged on the said amount and in the event of loss / claim by the insured, the insurance company can not be allowed to say that the I.D.V. of the vehicle mentioned in the insurance policy was not correct and the actual I.D.V. of the vehicle was less than the sum shown in the insurance policy.
8. Admittedly, the vehicle was insured for Rs. 1,80,000/-, as is also admitted by the surveyor of the insurance company, hence for the purposes of calculating the loss, the I.D.V. of the vehicle is to be taken as Rs. 1,80,000/-. On the basis of I.D.V. of the vehicle, while making assessment of loss on net of salvage basis (with R.C.), the surveyor has assessed loss as Rs. 1,49,500/-, which appears to be justified. Thus, the amount of Rs. 1,80,000/- awarded by the District Commission needs to be reduced to Rs. 1,49,500/-. Needless to say that in the present situation, the salvage of the vehicle shall remain 5 with the complainant. It is worth to mention here that there is no plausible evidence available on record having been filed by the complainant, so as to discard / disprove the assessment of loss made by the surveyor of the insurance company. Rest of the reliefs awarded by the District Commission, i.e., interest; amount towards mental agony and costs, are perfectly justified and require no interference. This way, the appeal is to be partly allowed in the above terms, thereby modifying the impugned judgment and order passed by the District Commission.
9. Appeal is partly allowed. Impugned judgment and order 31.03.2021 passed by the District Commission is modified to the extent that the amount of Rs. 1,80,000/- awarded by the District Commission towards I.D.V. of the vehicle stands reduced to Rs. 1,49,500/-. Rest of the impugned judgment and order passed by the District Commission is confirmed. Costs of the appeal made easy.
10. A copy of this Order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 / 2019. The Order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.
(U.S. TOLIA) (JUSTICE D.S. TRIPATHI)
Member-II President
K