Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2 refuted the assertion that the Surveyor's report or the addendum report lacked adequate detail and further clarified that they had already corresponded with the relevant Regional Transport Office (RTO) to verify the authenticity of Mr. Ashwani Kumar's driving license, the driver involved in the incident.
They contested the Complainant's computation of the total repair estimate, asserting that it should be determined solely based on the Surveyor's report. Citing General Regulation 8 of the Indian Motor Tariff (IMT), which governs the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, they pointed out that a vehicle may only be categorized as a total loss if the repair costs exceed 75% of the insured value. In this instance, the Surveyor's assessment of Rs.8,33,586/- fell below 75% of the insured vehicle's value, which stood at Rs. 22.68 lakhs. Therefore, the vehicle could not be classified as a constructive total loss and preserved their right to repudiate the claim in the event that Mr. Ashwani Kumar's driving license was found to be counterfeit or invalid on the date of the accident. Furthermore, they affirmed that they had not provided deficient service and had not engaged in unfair trade practices and specifically denied the veracity of the remaining allegations, categorizing them as inaccurate.
There is no dispute to the fact that the insured's Car met with an accident and was lodged in a waterlogged ditch in the middle of the road and got damaged.  The insured had a valid insurance and had intimated the Insurance Company shortly after the accident. The issue raised by the Insurance Company was that the driver of the vehicle did not possess a valid license to operate the vehicle. The issue raised by the Complainant was that the estimate provided by the Surveyor is incorrect as the vehicle has suffered a total constructive loss.

On the other issue we would like to rely on the order of this Commission in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Manjit Kaur & Ors. 2016 (1) CPR 291 decided on 04.12.2015, the relevant para is reproduced below :-

"7. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the vehicle is to be treated as a CTL only if the cost is retrieval of repair to the insurance policy after applying the depreciation in terms of the insurance policy, exceeds 75% of the IDV of the vehicle. I however find no merit in this contention. In my opinion, the above referred clause envisages the insured vehicle is to be treated as a CTL if the total cost of its repair or retrieval thereupon of the contribution of the insurance company exceeds 75% of the IDV of the vehicle. Had the intention been to treat the insured vehicle as a CTL only in a case where the cost of repair to the insurance company been more than 75% of the IDV of the vehicle, the above referred clause would have been worded altogether differently. The clause as it appears in the insurance policy clearly means that if the total cost of repair or retrieval of the vehicle irrespective of who bears the said cost, exceeds 75% of the IDV of the vehicle, the insurance company has no option but to treat as a Constructive Total Loss (CTL). In the present case, the total cost of repair/retrieval of the vehicle as per estimate given by M/s Goyal Motors exceeded 75% of the IDV of the vehicle and therefore, the insurance company was required to treat as a Constructive Total Loss, unless it is shown that the said estimate was not a fair and correct estimate of such repairs.
We are of the view that the cost of repair of the vehicle certainly exceeds 75% of the IDV of the vehicle on the basis of the workshop's estimate and therefore we see it as a total constructive loss which the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify.
In view of the discussion above, we are of the considered view that the Order of the State Commission does not suffer from any illegality. We, therefore, dismiss both the Appeals and uphold the Order of the State Commission.
Parties to bear their own cost. Pending application(s) if any, stand disposed of.