AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Deepa Sharma, Presiding Member
The present Appeal has been filed against the order dated 08.05.2018 of the State Commission in Complaint No. 27 of 2018.
The brief admitted facts of the case are that respondent / complainant ( hereinafter referred to as ‘complainant’) had insured his truck no. CG07-AZ-3337 for a sum of Rs.25.00 lacs for the period 04.01.2016 to 03.01.2017 with the Appellant ( in short, the Insurance Company). During the validity of the policy, the vehicle met with an accident on 31.12.2016 near village Ardhapur, Distt. Nanded ( Maharashtra). Intimation of the accident was given by the complainant to the various authorities including the insurance company. The insurance company appointed surveyor Mr. Pawan Bhagwani. He did the spot survey and submitted its report on 10.01.2017. He submitted the final survey report on 28.08.2017 and assessed the loss at Rs.9,30,571.25/- in full and final settlement of the case. This report was submitted on the repair basis. The insurance company, thereafter, demanded from the complainant the documents of repair of the vehicle vide their letter dated 01.11.2017. Vide notice dated 12.02.2018, the complainant informed the insurance company that he has not get the vehicle repaired. Vide repudiation letter dated 11.05.2018, after receipt of legal notice from the complainant, the claim of the complainant was closed by the insurance company as ‘No Claim’. The repudiation letter was issued only after the complaint was filed by the complainant on 19.04.2018 on the ground of deficiency on the part of the insurance company.
The complaint was filed by the complainant claiming the entire insured amount i.e. Rs.25.00 lacs on the ground of ‘Total Loss’ of the vehicle.
In the written version, the insurance company took the plea that vehicle was repairable and asked the complainant to repair the vehicle and also submitted that the surveyor had assessed the loss on the basis of repairability of the damaged vehicle and that the payment would be made by them of the assessed amount only when the vehicle is repaired and proof of repair be submitted by the complainant.
Parties led their evidences before the State Commission. The State Commission after hearing the arguments of the counsels and after going through the case laws filed by the parties, while allowing the complaint, accepted the plea of the insurance company that vehicle was repairable and directed the insurance company to pay the amount which had been assessed by the surveyor on account of repairability of the vehicle.
Aggrieved, the present Appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company wherein it is alleged that money can be released only when the complainant first gets the vehicle repaired and submit the documents and re-verification be done and it is submitted that impugned order is liable to be set aside.
No other contention has been raised in the present Appeal. Al-though rate of interest granted by the State Commission is not a ground of Appeal but counsel for the insurance company has argued that interest @ 12% p.a. is on a higher side.
I have heard the arguments and perused the relevant record.
The admitted facts of the case are that vehicle was insured and had met with an accident and that the surveyor had given its report and assessed the loss at Rs.9,30,571.25 on the basis of repairability of the vehicle. The State Commission had duly accepted the report of the surveyor and also concluded that vehicle was repairable and hence the complainant was entitled to the amount assessed by the surveyor. Despite the fact that vehicle was repairable as per the surveyor report and the repairing cost has been assessed to the amount of Rs.9,30,571/- by the surveyor, yet the insurance company closed the claim of the complainant as ‘No Claim’ on a filmsy ground that first the vehicle needed to be repaired and then only the money would be released. Counsel for the insurance company has failed to bring to my notice any rule or regulation under the Insurance Act which requires the insured to first get the damaged vehicle repaired by spending money from his own pocket and then it would be redeemed by the insurance company. The very purpose of buying the insurance policy is that the insured is not required to spend money in case of any damage or loss of his insured vehicle. If the argument of the insurance company is accepted, the very purpose of buying the insurance policy would be negated. The argument has no force.
The argument of the counsel that rate of interest granted by the State Commission is towards higher side has been raised at this stage and there is no contention to this effect in the appeal. The Appeal has not been filed challenging the rate of interest. No ground regarding higher rate of interest has been mentioned in the present Appeal.
I found no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the impugned order, which is totally based on the facts and circumstances proved on record.
The Appeal has no merit and same is dismissed with no order as to costs.
At this stage counsel for the complainant submits that the entire decretal amount with updated interest is lying with the State Commission as per the direction of this Commission dated 18.09.2018 and it is requested that this money be ordered to be released to the complainant. Request is not opposed by the counsel for the insurance company. The State Commission is directed to release the deposited amount along with interest accrued thereon immediately to the complainant on receipt of application from the complainant along with copy of this order. In case there is any money yet to be paid by the insurance company, the complainant is free to take the legal recourse.