The matter in this revision petition arises from insurance claim of a motor vehicle which has met with an accident soon after its purchase. The estimate for repair was given as Rs.7,50,775/- but, the actual bill of repair had come to Rs.6,15,774/-. The surveyor appointed by the insurance company had estimated the loss at Rs.5,24,937/-. But, the net amount recommended to be paid to the Complainant was Rs.4,09,495/- only. The District Forum allowed the actual cost of repair i.e. Rs.6,15,774/- with compensation of Rs.20,000/-. The State Commission has completely endorsed the view taken by the District Forum. 2. The revision petitioner/Oriental Insurance Company has filed this revision petition against concurrent orders of the two fora mentioned above. We have perused the records and heard two sides. Ms. Neerja Sachdeva, Advocate, has been heard on behalf of the Insurance Company and Ms. Pratima N. Chauhan, Advocate on behalf of Respondent No.1/Complainant. Respondent No.2/M/s Samta Motors Pvt. Ltd. has remained unrepresented. 3. The main contention in the revision petition is that the deduction has been made by the petitioner as per the recommendation of the surveyor. Therefore, settlement of the claim with deductions recommended by the surveyor is perfectly fair on the part of the petitioner and does not amount to deficiency of service. Thus, the only question involved in the dispute was about the justifiability of the deductions recommended by the surveyor. The District Forum has observed the vehicle was purchased by the Complainant merely two months and eleven days before it met with the accident. It was on this ground that the actual cost of repair was allowed. 4. While agreeing with the view taken by the District Forum, the State Commission has observed that:- “Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the observations of the District Forum as mentioned above we are of the view that the vehicle of the complainant has been totally damaged in the alleged accident. Admittedly the complainant purchased the vehicle in question from opposite party No.3 and got insured his vehicle with opposite parties No.1 & 2 vide cashless policy dated 15.4.2011. It is not disputed that during the subsistence of the insurance policy the vehicle in question met with an accident upon which the complainant brought his vehicle to the opposite party No.3 for its repair and spent a sum of Rs.6,15,774.15 paisa on the repair of the vehicle. The vehicle in question was insured by the complainant for a sum of Rs.6,29,775/- and as per the bill issued by opposite party No.3 the complainant had spent a sum of Rs.6,15,774.15 paisa ion account of repair of the damage vehicle and thus, the complainant is entitled to claim the actual bill amounting to Rs.6,15,774/-. The surveyor of the opposite parties while submitted his report has failed to consider the bill vide which the complainant has paid a sum of Rs.6,229,775/- to the opposite party No.3.” 5. We find ourselves incomplete agreement with the view taken by the fora below. As the vehicle was less than three months old when it met with the accident, the question of any deduction should not arise. Secondly, the vehicle was got repaired from OP-3 from whom it had been purchased. Therefore, there is no occasion to doubt the correctness of the costs incurred its repair. Thirdly, the policy itself was a cash less policy. More importantly, no justification has been given for deduction towards depreciation other than recommendation of the surveyor. For the reasons above, the revision petition is held to be devoid of any merit and is dismissed as such. |
