AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The complainant/respondent purchased a Ford Figo Car bearing Regn. No.CG-07-MB 3645 and got the same insured with the petitioner company for 2.2.2012 to 1.2.2013. The vehicle was got financed from Bank of India. On 21.10.2012 after about 8 months of the purchase, the vehicle met with an accident and was brought to M/s Maruti Auto Centre at Bhilai for repairs. On intimation being given to the insurer, a surveyor was appointed to assess the loss. The surveyor sent a letter dated 10.4.2013 to the complainant, referring to his earlier letter dated 28.2.2013 and requesting him to dismantle the vehicle for the purpose of further inspection so that internal damages could be verified. The complainant/respondent replied to the aforesaid letter on 22.4.2013, denying therein the receipt of the earlier letter dated 28.2.2013. It was stated in the reply that the earlier letter dated 28.2.2013 was also received by him along with the letter dated 10.4.2013.
As regards the request made by the surveyor for dismantling the vehicle, it was stated by the complainant that since the vehicle had got fully damaged and was not in a repairable condition, no useful purpose would be served from its dismantling. It was also pointed out in the said reply that the cost of the repair had been assessed by M/s Maruti Auto Centre at Rs.6,60,509/- which was more than the insured value of the vehicle.
The surveyor then made his own assessment without dismantling of the vehicle and estimated the cost of repairs at Rs.156181.60. There is no evidence of the petitioner company having offered even that amount to the complainant but it is an admitted position that the said amount was not acceptable to the complainant. Being aggrieved, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a complaint. The complaint was resisted by the insurer primarily on the same ground on which the claim had been closed on account of non-cooperation from the complainant on account of his having not got the vehicle dismantled.
The District Forum vide its order dated 28.5.2015 directed the insurer to pay a sum of Rs.5,28,150/- to the complainant along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of the complaint. The insurer was also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.3,000/- as cost of litigation to the complainant.
Being aggrieved from the order of the District Forum, the insurer approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 15.10.2015, the State Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. Being still dissatisfied, the insurer is before this Commission by way of this revision petition.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to clause 1 of the conditions attached to the insurance policy which interalia requires the insured to give all such information and assistance as the company shall require. It is an admitted position that after the vehicle was inspected and the estimate of repairs was prepared at M/s Maruti Auto Centre, it was taken to an authorised service centre of the manufacturer on 28.4.2014, during the pendency of the first round of litigation between the parties. The aforesaid authorised dealer of the manufacturer estimated the cost of repair at Rs.5,65,021/-, which was more than the IDV of the vehicle. Though, it can hardly be disputed that the insured ought to have rendered the requisite assistance to the surveyor and should have agreed to the dismantling of the vehicle, the fact remains that since the accident took place more than four years ago, no useful purpose will be served if I direct dismantling of the vehicle and a fresh assessment of damages at this stage. The disinclination of the complainant to agree for dismantling the vehicle has to be viewed in the light of the fact that estimated cost of repairs was more than the IDV of the vehicle. The complainant in these circumstances bonafidely believe that no useful purpose will be served from getting the vehicle dismantled. In these circumstances, it would not be fair and reasonable to restrict the claim to the amount assessed by the surveyor only on account of the aforesaid reluctance on the part of the insured. It has to be kept in mind that the assessment made by the surveyor was not based on full inspection of the vehicle since inspection for the purpose of assessing internal damages to the vehicle could not be made. Since the authorised service centre of the manufacture also assessed the cost of repair at more than the IDV of the vehicle, the fair and reasonable approach in the facts and circumstances of the case would be to pay to the complainant, deemed IDV of the vehicle as on the date the vehicle was inspected by the authorised service centre of the manufacturer.
The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as per the insurance policy of the company available on page no.60, the applicable depreciation is 30%, where the age of the vehicle exceeded two years but does not exceed three years. Since the vehicle came to be purchased on 2.2.2012 and the authorised dealer of the manufacturer inspected it on 28.4.2014, the aforesaid percentage of depreciation would be applicable. Applying the aforesaid depreciation to the declared IDV of the vehicle, the balance amount comes to Rs.3,69,705/-, the petitioner is directed to pay the aforesaid amount to the complainant along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till the said amount is paid. The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly. The orders passed by the fora below stand modified accordingly.