State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Rajesh Kumar Agrawal vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. on 19 December, 2022
Complaint No.: Rajesh Kumar Agrawal Date of Pronouncement:
CC/19/37 Vs. 19/12/2022
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
AFR / NAFR
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
PANDRI, RAIPUR
Date of Institution: 22/07/2019
Date of Final Hearing: 05/12/2022
Date of Pronouncement: 19/12/2022
COMPLAINT CASE No.- CC/19/37
IN THE MATTER OF :
Rajesh Kumar Agrawal
S/o. Late Ramniwas Agrawal
R/o. Main Road, Batauli, P.S. & Tah. Batauli,
DIST - SARGUJA (C.G.)
Through: Shri R.K. Bhawnani, Advocate
... Complainant.
Vs.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Through: Branch Manager,
Bramharoad, Kumkum Hotel, P.S. & Tah. Ambikapur,
DIST - SARGUJA (C.G.) - 497 001
Through: Shri P.K. Paul, Advocate
... Opposite Party.
CORAM: -
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAUTAM CHOURDIYA, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE SMT. RUCHI GOEL, MEMBER
HON'BLE SHRI GOPAL CHANDRA SHIL, MEMBER
HON'BLE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR VARMA, MEMBER
PRESENT: -
Shri R.K. Bhawnani, Advocate for the complainant.
Shri P.K. Paul, Advocate for the opposite party.
JUDGEMENT
PER: - JUSTICE GAUTAM CHOURDIYA, PRESIDENT The complainant has filed this complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (hereinafter called "the Act" for short) alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party Insurance Company and seeking direction to the opposite party to pay Rs.24,68,700/- as total loss of the vehicle along with the amount of seven installments paid to the financer of the vehicle Rs.6,09,000/- i.e. for total claim of Rs.30,77,700/- with interest. Rs.50,000/- as compensation for ALLOWED Page 1 of 15 Complaint No.: Rajesh Kumar Agrawal Date of Pronouncement:
CC/19/37 Vs. 19/12/2022 United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
mental agony and financial loss and cost of litigation have also been sought by the complainant.
2. It is not in dispute that the complainant is the registered owner of vehicle bearing No.CG-15-DC-9936. To cover the risk of the said vehicle he obtained an insurance policy No.2706003117P116202325 for the period between 10.02.2018 to 09.02.2019. The IDV (Insured Declared Value) of the vehicle was Rs.24,68,700/-. On 30.04.2018 due to some technical fault, the insured vehicle met with an accident near village Padhi and it dashed with a road side tree. On 30.04.2018 itself in the morning 7:00 am intimation regarding the incident was given to Police Station Pasta.
3. As per the case of the complainant, on 01.05.2018 intimation regarding the incident was given to the opposite party insurance company also. The insurance company, through its Surveyor, conducted initial survey of the vehicle and thereafter the Surveyor appointed by the insurance company Shri S. K. Sur also examined the vehicle. The Surveyor Shri S.K. Sur after conducting survey, opined that for assessment of repairing cost of the vehicle, an estimate be obtained from Ashok Leyland Service Station and thereafter the vehicle be got repaired. The Ashok Leyland Service Station given estimate of Rs.24,87,576.32 for repairing of the damaged vehicle. Then the vehicle was brought to the Authorized Service Station of the Ashok Leyland at Lakhanpur for repairing. After examination, the Service Station intimated that until the 25% of the estimated amount is not deposited in advance, the repairing work will not be started. When regarding these facts, the Surveyor was intimated, the Surveyor instructed the Service Station on 11.10.2018 through email that repairing work be not done more than of ALLOWED Page 2 of 15 Complaint No.: Rajesh Kumar Agrawal Date of Pronouncement:
CC/19/37 Vs. 19/12/2022 United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Rs.16,00,000/- and also instructed to start the repairing work. Then, on 01.09.2018 & 03.09.2018 in two installments of Rs.50,000/- total Rs.1,00,000/- was deposited by the complainant with the Service Station as advance. Thereafter, the complainant made repeated requests to the insurance company for speedy disposal of his claim, but the insurance company neither decided his claim nor any information was given. The IDV of the vehicle was Rs.24,68,700/- and the estimate of repairs of the vehicle given by the authorized service station was of Rs.24,87,576/-, then there was no reason for the Surveyor to instruct the Service Station to do the repairing work amounting only up to Rs.16,00,000/-. In fact the claim ought to have been settled on total loss basis and the IDV of the vehicle Rs.24,68,700/- ought to have been given to him without any delay. Complainant has also averred that the vehicle in question was the only source of his income and because of accident and non-repair of the vehicle he was unable to deposit the installments of the loan. He had to deposit quarterly taxes of the vehicle. The Authorized Service Station of Ashok Leyland is asking for halting charges of the vehicle @ Rs.1,000/- per day etc. Hence, with the prayer of considering the claim of the vehicle on total loss basis, the complainant has sought the reliefs as aforesaid in paragraph No.01 and filed this complaint.
4. Except the undisputed facts, the opposite party Insurance Company in its written version has submitted that the Surveyor & Loss Assessor Shri S. K. Sur examined and opined that on the basis of visible damages, the loss occurred to the vehicle was less than 75% of its IDV, hence instead of „total loss basis‟, the loss of the vehicle is fit for assessment on „repair loss basis‟. The Surveyor also wrote letters and requested the complainant to get the vehicle dismantled for initiating ALLOWED Page 3 of 15 Complaint No.: Rajesh Kumar Agrawal Date of Pronouncement:
CC/19/37 Vs. 19/12/2022 United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
repair work, so that after re-examination survey of the repaired vehicle, final report and re-examination survey report can be submitted to the insurance company. Insurance Company also requested the complainant vide letter dated 18.06.2018 to submit the final bill of parts and repairing with bank details for payment through RTGS etc., but no heed was paid by the complainant. When no interest was shown by the complainant in repairing and re-examination of the vehicle or in depositing bills and cash memo etc., then the Surveyor was asked by the insurance company to submit his survey report within seven days so that the claim can be settled immediately. Thereafter, vide letter dated 15.10.2018 the complainant was informed that on their request the repairer Dealer of the vehicle has informed that repair of the vehicle will be started only when 50% of the estimated cost is deposited. The opposite party / insurance company has specifically denied that their authorized Surveyor vide email dated 11.10.2018 has instructed the Authorized Service Station to not to do the repairing work amounting more than Rs.16,00,000/-. The complainant failed to deposit 50% of the estimated cost of repairing of the vehicle, hence the vehicle could not be repaired and resultantly neither re- examination of repaired vehicle could be done nor any bill of repairs, cash memo could be submitted. Hence, the claim could not be settled for want of proper action on the part of the complainant himself. Thus, the insurance company has not committed any deficiency in service. Ultimately, final survey report dated 04.03.2019 was submitted by the Surveyor before the opposite party/ insurance company assessing the total loss at Rs.11,86,567.60. Therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay any amount to the complainant on total loss basis as claimed by him. He is also not entitled to get any of other reliefs sought by him in the complaint and the complaint amounts to be dismissed. ALLOWED Page 4 of 15 Complaint No.: Rajesh Kumar Agrawal Date of Pronouncement:
CC/19/37 Vs. 19/12/2022 United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
5. We have heard the arguments of both parties, perused the record as well as the written arguments filed by both the learned counsels.
6. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the insured vehicle suffered a road accident during the term of the insurance policy, regarding which immediately intimation was given to the insurance company and surveyor was appointed. Claim form was also submitted by the complainant before the insurance company within time. The only issue before this Commission to consider is whether the claim of the complainant is liable to be settled on total loss basis as claimed by the complainant or the complainant is only entitled to get the claim amount as per the surveyor‟s report dated 04.03.2019.
7. The remarks made by the Surveyor Mr. S. K. Sur in his report, at the bottom of page No.4, is "THE ASSESSMENT MADE AS ABOVE IS BASED ON DAMAGE VISIBLE ON THE VEHICLE, SINCE THE VEHICLE IS NOT DISMANTLED, HENCE ACTUAL REPAIR COST MAY SLIGHTLY DIFFER FROM THAT ASSESSED AS ABOVE". In his report net payable amount, after deducting salvage value, is mentioned as Rs.11,86,567.6 for final settlement of the claim. As per the remarks made by the Surveyor in his report, it appears that the surveyor report is only on the basis of prima facie visible damages to the vehicle and not on the basis of re-examination after dismantle of vehicle for repairing and that is why the internal damages of the vehicle could not be assessed by the surveyor. The complainant, in support of his claim on the basis of total loss of vehicle, has filed tentative quotation dated 07.05.2018 issued by the authorized dealer of the vehicle Gulf Ashley Motor Limited, Ambikapur, amounting Rs.24,87,576.32 including service tax @ 18% and ALLOWED Page 5 of 15 Complaint No.: Rajesh Kumar Agrawal Date of Pronouncement:
CC/19/37 Vs. 19/12/2022 United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
labour charges. The surveyor has not specifically given his report regarding the estimate submitted by the complainant.
8. The complainant submitted that when the vehicle was sent for repairing to Gulf Ashley Motor Limited, the said authorized dealer demanded Rs.16,00,000/- as advance to start the repairing work, as per the copy of email dated 11.10.2018 submitted by both parties, which is marked as Annexure C-7 & C-12 by the complainant and as Exhibit OP-13 by the opposite party. The contents of email dated 11.10.2018 sent by one Mr. Sunil Tailor of Gulf Ashley Motor Limited to the Surveyor with CC to Mr. G. P. Bara, Divisional Manager of the opposite party/insurance company and two more persons is as under : -
"Dear Sir, For information, As per policy without 50% advance payment We can't start the work, We received 100000/- Rs.(One Lac Rupees) only against 1600000/- Rs.(Sixteen Lac) repair work. So we are unable to start the work.
Already informed to customer Mr. Rajesh Agrawal (9425254556)"
It clearly shows that without depositing Rs.16,00,000/- the authorized dealer Gulf Ashley Motor Limited was not ready to start the repairing work. It is not in dispute that the vehicle was handed over to the Gulf Ashley Motor Limited for repairing and Rs.1,00,000/- was deposited as advance for repairing work. It is also not disputed that the vehicle was purchased by the complainant with the help of finance provided by Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, as per Annexure C-19, the Statement of Account. Therefore, looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, when without obtaining Rs.16,00,000/- in advance the authorized service station of the vehicle was not ready to start the repairing work and the vehicle ALLOWED Page 6 of 15 Complaint No.: Rajesh Kumar Agrawal Date of Pronouncement:
CC/19/37 Vs. 19/12/2022 United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
was not dismantled for repairing work, resultantly its internal damages could not be assessed after repairing and re-examination of vehicle, hence the report of the surveyor cannot be termed as complete survey report, merely which is based only on visible damages of the vehicle. The assessment of loss as per the surveyor‟s report without deducting the salvage value was Rs.12,66,567.6, whereas cost of the repairing as per tentative quotation given by the authorized service station of the vehicle was Rs.24,87,576.32.
9. It is also pertinent to mention here that the vehicle was purchased by the complainant with the help of loan of Rs.27,96,000/- obtained from Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., as per Statement of Account dated 24.01.2020, Annexure C-19. In this situation, demand of deposit of Rs.16,00,000/- in advance, as asked by the authorized service station of the vehicle, is very hardship and it is difficult particularly when repayment of installments of the loan account were due and the vehicle remained damaged, kept in the service station itself. In these circumstances, for consideration of actual loss occurred to the insured vehicle, the estimate of the Gulf Ashley Motor Limited appears the only justified source to arrive at a final conclusion. The tentative quotation for repairs is of Rs.24,87,576.32, which is a little more than the IDV of the vehicle. It was the duty of the surveyor to verify first the vehicle was repairable or not, but in this regard there is no any specific comment of the surveyor whether the vehicle was repairable or not nor any other report available on record after dismantling the vehicle regarding the actual repairing cost of the vehicle.
10. The damaged vehicle was first examined on spot on 30.04.2018 itself by Er. Durgesh Tiwari, Surveyor and Loss Assessor and he ALLOWED Page 7 of 15 Complaint No.: Rajesh Kumar Agrawal Date of Pronouncement:
CC/19/37 Vs. 19/12/2022 United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
submitted his Motor Spot Survey Report dated 04.08.2018, marked as Exhibit OP-3. Looking to the report Exhibit OP-3, it appears that in the final survey report, the surveyor Mr. S. K. Sur has left a number of articles in his report because the vehicle could not be dismantled for repairing and further inspection for internal damages could not be done. Motor Spot Surveyor Mr. Tiwari, in his report dated 04.08.2018, Exhibit OP-3, at page No.2 under the head Particulars of Visible Damages has mentioned as under : -
PARTICULARS OF VISIBLE DAMAGES:
S. No. Heading Description
1 BODY SHELL a) Body shell assy roof assly/Dash board
Panel/Both sidepanel/RH door assly/ under plate form/ under inner panels & under fitting of BodyShell assly such as dash board/ steering assly/ bonnet assly/ Front main glass/ driver & Co-Driver & meter board assly/ under wiring harness & under parts damaged.
b) Front grill assy & RHS Fittings parts damaged.
c) RHS Fender cover/ Foot rest panel damaged.
2 FRONT END a) Front Bumper & Fitting parts damaged.
STRUCTURE/DRIVERS b) Kit air intake system damaged. CABIN
c) Bank Plate/ Face plate/ Rear Transverse member/ Front & Rear Cabin shock up damaged.
3 COOLING SYSTEM Radiator with Shroud/ Fan Asy/ Inter cooler damaged.
4 ENGINE & TRANSMISSION Engine/ gear box not visual damages details to check.
5 CHASSIS ASSEMBLY a) Chassis assy damaged/ bent.
b) Front Cross member damaged.
6 ELECTRICALS RHS Head Lights/Indicators damaged. 7 LOAD BODY Load body front wall pressed/ damaged. 8 EXHAUST SYSTEM Silenser assy damaged.
9 BRAKE SYSTEM Brake booster/ ABC pedal assy/ Clutch cly damaged.
10 STEERING SYSTEM Steering box/ Bracket/ Pressure Pipes/ Column/ Wheel & other fittings damaged.
11 FRONT SUSPENSION a) Front Shock up both/ Both front leaf spring assy/ Axle beam damaged.
b) Tie road/ push rod damaged.
Notes: Every care been taken in noting the damages, however, if damages found any at the time of final survey can be considered if concurrent with cause of accident."
In the final survey report dated 04.03.2019, the Surveyor Mr. S. K. Sur has made remarks at the end of the report to the effect that : - ALLOWED Page 8 of 15
Complaint No.: Rajesh Kumar Agrawal Date of Pronouncement:
CC/19/37 Vs. 19/12/2022 United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
"THE ASSESSMENT MADE AS ABOVE IS BASED ON DAMAGE VISIBLE ON THE VEHICLE, SINCE THE VEHICLE IS NOT DISMANTLED, HENCE ACTUAL REPAIR COST MAY SLIGHTLY DIFFER FROM THAT ASSESSED AS ABOVE".
In the final survey report many Photo Nos. have been mentioned against the items described, but such photographs have not been placed on record by the opposite party.
11. It is worth mentioning here the duties of the Surveyor at the time of preparing survey report, as prescribed in Motor Own Damage part of "Guidelines for Assisting Disposal of Claims" under Guidelines For Settlement of Claims - Own Damage clause : -
"g) Survey Report
i] Surveyor should ascertain the damage, assess
the quantum of payable claim, verify vehicular documents and confirm that the loss/damage being claimed for is in conformity with the narration of the accident.
ii] Where replacement of parts is allowed surveyors must physically verify serial nos. as appearing on major parts which carry such numbers.
Against estimated amount the surveyor has reduced the assessed amount remarkably in many items. But no reason or details for arriving at such amount has been mentioned in his report. Even in many items he has reduced the assessed amount up to less than the half of the estimated amount, whereas the estimate given by the authorized service station starts with the words "We are submitting Tentative Quotation-------".
12. On bear reading of the above reports and considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case it is abundantly clear that due to accident the vehicle was severely damaged and its estimated cost of repairing was of Rs.24,87,576.32, whereas the surveyor has only assessed the loss without deducting the salvage value at Rs.12,66,567.6, which ALLOWED Page 9 of 15 Complaint No.: Rajesh Kumar Agrawal Date of Pronouncement:
CC/19/37 Vs. 19/12/2022 United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
appears to be unjustified and incomplete assessment for the reasons as discussed hereinabove. We also find the complainant bona fide in depositing Rs.1,00,000/- as advance to start the repairing work, but he was unable to fulfill the harsh demand of the authorized service station for deposit of Rs.16,00,000/- in advance to start the repairing work.
13. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the considered view that the claim of the complainant needs to be settled on total loss basis. The surveyor Mr. S.K. Sur in his final report has mentioned the expected salvage value of the vehicle as Rs.80,000/- i.e. without dismantling the vehicle prima facie on the basis of visible damages. After dismantling the vehicle what would have been the salvage value is difficult to ascertain and any opinion in this regard cannot be framed by this Commission.
14. Learned counsel for the opposite party has placed reliance upon judgement of Hon‟ble National Commission in the case of Rakesh Kumar Vs. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., III (2015) CPJ 229 (NC), that was a case in which the surveyor appointed by the insurance company had clearly opined that the vehicle was capable of being repaired, hence the claim on the basis of total loss of vehicle was denied and it was held in paragraph No.8 that : -
"8. Merely on the basis of submission of complainant it cannot be presumed that the vehicle was required to be declared as a total loss when it was repairable. Surveyor has rightly pointed out that the vehicle was capable of being repaired.----".
But, this is not the case in hand. In fact in the instant case the surveyor has not clearly opined that the vehicle is repairable or irreparable. The abstract of his report and correspondences is that he always showed his concern with the dismantling of the vehicle to assess ALLOWED Page 10 of 15 Complaint No.: Rajesh Kumar Agrawal Date of Pronouncement:
CC/19/37 Vs. 19/12/2022 United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
the internal loss of the vehicle but unfortunately it could never be done because of harsh demand made by the authorized service station of the vehicle regarding deposit of Rs.16,00,000/- in advance to start the repairing work, but the act of the complainant was bona fide as in such a difficult financial situation he deposited Rs.1,00,000/- with the repairer. Similarly, the judgement of Hon‟ble National Commission relied by the opposite party/ insurance company in the case of IFFCO-Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Beena Raghav, III (2015) CPJ 75 (NC) is also distinguishable being on the different facts and circumstances. In that case also the surveyor had assessed the loss finally on repair basis and commented that the vehicle was repairable.
15. In view of the above discussion, we find that the judgements cited by the learned counsel for the opposite party is of no help to him and we are of the considered view that the opposite party/ insurance company has committed deficiency in service in not settling the claim of the complainant on total loss basis and in keeping the claim pending for a long period for either this reason or that reason, even due to this attitude of the opposite party, the internal damages of the vehicle could not be assessed. It goes without saying that this delay in starting repairing work and keeping the vehicle idle for long time would have caused further damages to the vehicle and loss would have exaggerated. In this situation also it would be just and proper to decide the claim of the complainant on total loss basis with order to the insurance company to retain the vehicle/salvage. If they want to sale out the vehicle, they can very well do so following the rules and completing the formalities, if any required for cancellation of hypothecation of the vehicle.
ALLOWED Page 11 of 15 Complaint No.: Rajesh Kumar Agrawal Date of Pronouncement:
CC/19/37 Vs. 19/12/2022 United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
16. Hon‟ble Apex Court in its judgement dated 30.01.2019 passed in Civil Appeal No.1299 of 2019 between Sumit Kumar Saha Vs. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., maintaining the law laid down in its earlier judgement in the matter of Dharmendra Goel Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2008) 8 SCC 279, has held in para-15 as under : -
"15. It is precisely in this set of facts that the question in the present matter arises. If both the sides, with their eyes open, had arrived at a particular figure to be the real value of the subject matter of insurance, is it open to any party to dispute said sum and contend that the real value was something different from what was declared by the parties to be the sum insured. One may understand cases where there is non- disclosure of material facts which may go to the root of the matter and as such the sanctity of the agreement itself may get affected. But if both the parties had agreed and arrived at an understanding, which understanding was otherwise not vitiated by any misrepresentation, fraud or coercion, the parties must be held bound by stipulation of such figure. This was the idea and the underlying principle in Dharmendra Goel (supra)"
Para-17 of the said judgement is also relevant and is reproduced below : -
"17. Having considered the entire matter, in our view, except in cases where the agreement on part of the Insurance Company is brought about by fraud, coercion or misrepresentation or cases where principle of uberrima fide is attracted, the parties are bound by stipulation of a particular figure as sum insured. Therefore, the surveyor and the Insurance Company were not justified in any way in questioning and disregarding the amount of "sum insured". Further depreciation, if any, can always be computed keeping the figure of "sum insured" in mind. The starting figure, therefore, in this case had to be the figure which was stipulated as "sum insured". Since Excavator, after the policy was taken out was used for eleven months, there must be some reasonable depreciation which ought to be deducted from the "sum insured". ------"
That was also a case where the insured vehicle - an excavator was badly damaged due to fire. The incident happened within two years of ALLOWED Page 12 of 15 Complaint No.: Rajesh Kumar Agrawal Date of Pronouncement:
CC/19/37 Vs. 19/12/2022 United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
the purchase of vehicle. Surveyors were appointed and assessed the loss.
The loss was assessed on two counts on repairing basis and on total loss basis also. The loss assessed on repairing basis was more than the double of the loss assessed on total loss basis and as well as the IDV of the vehicle also.
17. The schedule of depreciation for fixing IDV of the vehicle mentioned at page No.6 in the policy document, filed by the opposite party/insurance company, marked as Exhibit OP-1 is as under : -
"THE SCHEDULE OF DEPRECIATION FOR FIXING IDV OF THE VEHICLE AGE OF VEHICLE % OF DEPRECIATION FOR FIXING IDV Not exceeding 6 months 5% Exceeding 6 months but not exceeding 1 year 15% Exceeding 1 year but not exceeding 2 years 20% Exceeding 2 years but not exceeding 3 years 30% Exceeding 3 years but not exceeding 4 years 40% Exceeding 4 years but not exceeding 5 years 50% IDV of the vehicles beyond 5 years of age and of obsolete models of the vehicle (i.e. models which the manufactures have discontinued to manufacture) is to be determined on the basis of an understanding between the insurer and the insured."
It is not in dispute that the vehicle was purchased on 11.02.2017 for the total price, including taxes etc., of Rs.26,05,000/- as per the VAT/Retail Invoice and was got registered with the registering authority on 03.03.2017. The current insurance policy was obtained for the period 10/02/2018 to 09/02/2019 and the IDV (Insured Declared Value) of the vehicle was fixed at Rs.24,68,700/-, which was agreed by both the parties by way of contract of insurance and merely within a period of about two and half months on 30/04/2018 the incident of accident occurred. Hence applying the principle laid down by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Sumit Kumar Saha (supra), as per the schedule of depreciation for fixing IDV of the vehicle, given in the policy document itself, for the period not ALLOWED Page 13 of 15 Complaint No.: Rajesh Kumar Agrawal Date of Pronouncement:
CC/19/37 Vs. 19/12/2022 United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
exceeding six months, depreciation @ 5% is applicable. The insured declared value (IDV) of the vehicle was Rs.24,68,700/- at the time of taking policy, hence applying the rate of depreciation @ 5%, the considerable IDV on the date of accident comes to Rs.23,45,265/-.
18. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered view that the opposite party / insurance company has committed deficiency in service in not settling the claim of the complainant on total loss basis, as aforesaid. Therefore, the complaint succeeds and is allowed with the following directions : -
(i) The opposite party / insurance company shall pay the insured declared value (IDV) of the vehicle Rs.24,68,700/-
after deducting depreciation @ 5%, as applicable as per the schedule given in the policy document, which comes to Rs.23,45,265/- (Rupees Twenty Three Lacs Forty Five Thousand Two Hundred & Sixty Five) to the complainant within a period of one month from the date of order.
(ii) Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the financial loss and mental agony suffered by the complainant due to delay in settling his claim by the opposite party, it is directed that the above amount Rs.23,45,265/- (Rupees Twenty Three Lacs Forty Five Thousand Two Hundred & Sixty Five) will be paid by the opposite party with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of submission of claim before the opposite party/insurance company i.e. 31.05.2018 till the date of payment.
(iii) (a) The opposite party/ insurance company shall retain the vehicle/salvage.
(b) If they want to sale out the vehicle, they can do so as per guidelines and after completing the formalities for cancellation of hypothecation.
ALLOWED Page 14 of 15 Complaint No.: Rajesh Kumar Agrawal Date of Pronouncement:
CC/19/37 Vs. 19/12/2022 United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
(iv) The complainant in turn shall give NoC and co-operate in other formalities, if required for cancellation of hypothecation.
(v) The opposite party/insurance company shall also pay the cost of litigation to the complainant which is quantified as Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand).
(Justice Gautam Chourdiya) (Smt. Ruchi Goel)
President Member
/12/2022 /12/2022
(Gopal Chandra Shil) (Pramod Kumar Varma)
Member Member
/12/2022 /12/2022
Pronounced On: 19th December 2022
ALLOWED Page 15 of 15