Manjit Singh vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd

V.K. Jain, J

The complainant owned a vehicle which he had got insured with the respondent company. The vehicle was purchased on 01.06.2012. The vehicle met with an accident on the very next day of the purchase. An intimation of the accident having been given to the insurer, one Sh. M.S. Kohli was appointed as a surveyor to conduct the spot survey. As per his directions/advice, the vehicle was taken to M/s Kissan Motors, Authorized Service Centre of the manufacturer Tata Motors. Thereafter, another surveyor namely R.P. Gupta & Company was appointed for the final assessment of the loss suffered by the complainant. Though M/s Kissan Motors had given an estimate of Rs.4,08,795/-, which included the cost of replacement of Assembly Bare Cabin amounting to Rs.3,05,000/-, the surveyor M/s R.P. Gupta & Company assessed the loss of Rs.82,500/- taking a view that the Assembly Cabin was repairable. The said amount having been declined by the complainant, he approached the concerned District Forum by way of a Consumer Complaint.

The complaint was resisted by the insurer which admitted the insurance of the vehicle as well as the factum of the accident. It was inter-alia stated in the reply filed by the insurer that the surveyor R.P. Gupta & Company had assessed the loss at Rs.82,500/- but the complainant was insisting on replacement of the Assembly Cabin, which was repairable with some new parts. It was also stated in the written version filed by the insurer that as per condition no.3 of the insurance policy, company could, at its option, repair, re-instate or replace the vehicle or parts thereof. Thus, the stands taken by the insurer was that the Cabin was repairable.

The certificate issued by M/s Kissan Motors on 15.06.2012 reads as under:

"Certify that the vehicle chassis number MAT447221C3E14153 Regd. No. A/F came in our workshop with complaint accident loss Assy Cabin damaged from LHD from front side on dated 02/06/2012. This Cabin should not be repairable as per company norm. All the internal joint was damaged. So we have fitted the new Cabin and release the vehicle."

It would thus be seen that as per the norms of the manufacturer M/s Tata Motors, the Assembly Cabin which had been damaged from front side on 02.06.2012, was to be replaced instead of being repaired, as all the internal joints were damaged. It further shows that that they had accordingly fitted the new Cabin before releasing the vehicle.

Since the Authorized Service Centre of the manufacturer had certified that as per the norms laid down by the manufacturer itself, the Assembly Cabin was to be replaced and not repaired, the insurer was not justified in insisting upon the repair of the said Cabin, even if it is assumed for the purpose of arguments that it could have been repaired. Though the surveyor assessed the loss to the complainant at Rs.82,500/-, there is no evidence that it could have been repaired (inclusive of replacement of Assembly Cabin) at the aforesaid cost since the cost of replacement of Assembly Cabin itself was more than Rs.3 lacs as was given in the estimate furnished by M/s Kissan Motors. It cannot be accepted that the repair including replacement of the Assembly Cabin could have been carried out on spending the aforesaid amount of Rs.82,500/-.

The petitioner has already filed the receipt whereby payment of Rs.4,05,740/- was purportedly made to M/s Kissan Motors in cash on 05.07.2012. The vehicle was only one day old on the day it got damaged. Therefore, no depreciation would be applicable.

For the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned order is set aside and the respondent is directed to pay a sum of Rs.4,05,740/- to the complainant within six weeks from today subject to verification of the genuineness of the letter dated 15.06.2012 and the receipt dated 05.07.2012, purporting to have been issued by M/s Kissan Motors. The insurer shall also be entitled to salvage of the replaced parts including the Assembly Cabin, before making the aforesaid payment. The complainant/petitioner will also be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum on the aforesaid amount w.e.f. six months from the date of submission of the claim till the date on which the said amount is actually paid to the complainant. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to payment of compensation or with respect to the cost of litigation.