AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The present Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), has been filed Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Limited (for short "the Insurance Company"), the Opposite Party in the original Complaint, against the order dated 11.07.2017 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula (for short "the State Commission") in Appeal No.1241 of 2016. This Appeal had been filed by the Insurance Company against the order dated 09.09.2016 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jhajjar (for short "the District Forum") in Complaint No.257 of 2015 which allowed the said Complaint and directed the Insurance Company to pay the IDV of the vehicle, i.e., Rs.2,45,233/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of loss/accident, i.e., 14.02.2014 till its realization along with a sum of Rs.5,500/- on account of litigation expenses.
By the impugned order, the State Commission dismissed the Appeal of the Insurance Company and confirmed the order of the District Forum.
The order is impugned on the ground that the State Commission has failed to consider the fact that the Insured had not informed the Insurance Company about the accident which prevented the Surveyor from getting the requisite information and assess the loss and secondly, that simply on the basis of the photographs showing damage to the vehicle, the entire Insured Declared Value (IDV) cannot be granted and that the entire IDV can be granted only if the loss occurred is more than 75%.
Learned Counsel for the Respondent has argued that this court has limited Jurisdiction while dealing with the matter in Revision Petition and that the concurrent findings of facts cannot be disturbed. It is submitted that there are findings of fact that the Insurance Company had the information of the accident and a legal notice was also sent to the Insurance Company. It is submitted that both the Fora below have rightly held that the Insurance Company has failed in discharge of its obligation under the contract and therefore, there is deficiency in service on their part.
The brief facts of the case relevant for disposal of this Revision Petition are that the car of the Respondent, bearing No.HR 14J 4799 was insured with the Petitioner for the period 27.12.2013 to 26.12.2014 which met with an accident on 15.02.2014. In the accident, two persons died and two persons received injuries. The Insurance Company was duly informed and they also settled the claim of the deceased in MACP No.RBT43 of 2014 tilted Smt. Sewa Devi Vs. Krishan and Ors. in the court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhajjar wherein they were directed to pay the amount of compensation to Smt. Sewa Devi. It is on these facts and on the basis of the legal notice, the Fora below have held that the Insurance Company had sufficient knowledge and notice of the accident. Moreover, when the Complaint was filed and the claim put up, the Insurance Company was informed that the vehicle had met with an accident and had suffered damages. The Insurance Company took the plea that the claim was premature but made no effort to inspect the vehicle and assess the damages occurred.
It was the duty of the Insurance Company under the contract that when they had the information of the accident they should have assessed the damages caused to the insured vehicle and assessed the damages which they have failed to do so. Also the legal notice served upon them shows that the Surveyor was appointed in this matter by the Insurance Company but again it seems that he had not made any effort to assess the damages caused to the vehicle. Therefore, both the Fora below have correctly held that the Insurance Company had sufficient notice of the accident. The fact that despite filing of the Complaint, the Insurance Company made no effort to assess the damages, they cannot be absolved of their responsibility. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has relied on the findings of the Hon'ble High Court at New Delhi in the case of "Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Subodh Chand Gupta, 2018 SCC Online Del 7237", on para 19 and 21. Both the paras are reproduced as under for the sake of convenience.
"19. As per the above clause, notice has to be given to the Insurance Company within 10 days after the accident took place. The claim is to be submitted within 20 days. The above condition being a part of the policy document is binding upon the Plaintiff. Plaintiff has failed to comply with the said conditions. As per the law laid down in Sony Cheriyan (supra), the Supreme Court has held as under:
"The insurance policy between the insurer and the insured represents a contract between the parties. Since the insurer undertakes to compensate the loss suffered by the insured on account of risks covered by the insurance policy, the terms of the agreement have to be strictly construed to determine the extent of liability of the insurer. The insured cannot claim anything more than what is covered by the insurance policy. That being so, the insured has also to act strictly in accordance with the statutory limitations or terms of the policy expressly set out therein."
............
In Chandumull Jain (supra), it was held as under:
"The policy not only defines the risk and its duration but also lays down the special terms and conditions under which the policy may be enforced on either side."
From the above case law, it is apparent that when the claim is under cover insurance policy, the compensation so granted shall not accede the terms of the policy. Herein also, the amounts granted by the Fora below are the one which was covered under the policy and therefore, it cannot be said that the State Commission has exceeded its Jurisdiction while granting the reliefs. As there was no other method to assess the damages, the Fora below have correctly relied on the photographs of the damaged vehicle. For the reasons discussed above, I find no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. The Revision Petition has no merit and is dismissed with no order as to costs.