DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016

Case No.149/2013

Smt. Prem Yadav

D/o Shri Mai Chand Yadav

59, A-Block, Mahipal Pur Extension,

Delhi

….Complainant

Versus

M/s Bajaj Allianz General insurance Co. Ltd.

Through its Directors

1-3 Floor, J-11/40,

Central Market, Lajpat Nagar,

Delhi

                                                                                                  ….Opposite Party

 Date of Institution    :    25.03.2013   

 Date of Order            :   21.09.2022    

Coram:

Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member

ORDER

Member: Ms. Kiran Kaushal

1.      Facts of the complaint as pleaded by the Complainant are that Complainant is the owner of Tata Indigo Car, which was got insured with M/s Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as OP).

2.      The said insurance covered risk of theft and accidental damage with insured at declared value of Rs.4,68,772/- alongwith compulsory life coverage of Rs.2,00,000/- for the Driver-cum-owner. The insurance cover was valid from 10.05.2012 till 09.05.2013 for which the Complainant paid premium of Rs.22,709/-.

3.      It is stated that Complainant’s vehicle met with an accident on 26.09.2012 , which was being driven by Mr. Mahender Singh, who expired in the said accident. Vehicle was completely damaged due to the accident. Copy of the FIR is annexed as Annexure C-3. The Complainant informed OP and the claim of the Complainant was registered. Complainant submitted and signed all the papers as required by the OP and their surveyor. The surveyor of OP assessed the loss of the vehicle as “Complete Loss”. The complainant was informed that claim of the Complainant will be paid within 15 days but OP failed to settle the claim even after expiry of six months, which is the stipulated time as per the notification issued by IRDA.

4.      Alleging deficiency of service of OP, Complainant approached this Commission to direct  OP to pay Rs. 4,68,772/- towards the  insured claim value and Rs.2,00,000/-  @24% towards life coverage of the deceased driver. Additionally, it is prayed that OP be directed to pay Rs. 2,00,000/- towards damages for harassment, agony and Rs 20,000/- towards cost of litigation.

5.      OP resisted the  complaint stating interalia that as per the terms & conditions of the insurance policy  in case the vehicle  is damaged upto 75% or more, only then the insurer would be entitled to avail 100% of the insured amount. The Complainant’s vehicle is damaged less than 75% as per the assessment by the surveyor. In such cases the insured is entitled only to the proportionate amount of IDV (insured declared value) and as per the assessment of the independent surveyor the total loss is Rs.3,09,353/-, which is less than 75% of the insured amount. Insurance policy and surveyor report is annexed as Annexure R-1 & Annexure R-2 respectively.

6.      It is stated that the officials of the company and the surveyor had requested the complainant to shift the vehicle with desired repairer so that the said vehicle could be dismantled  in the presence of surveyor. However the complainant refused to allow the company officials to take the vehicle for assessment. The surveyor was eventually left with no option but to submit independent loss assessment report. Thereafter, the OP company wrote four letters  to the complainant urging and requesting the complainant to cooperate with OP to settle the claim. It is next stated that OP is still willing to pay the assessed damages which comes to Rs.3,09,353/-.

7.      It is stated that the life cover under Clause 4 of the policy is meant only for the registered owner of the vehicle and not for any other person. The word written in the policy is the owner-driver and not  owner-cum –driver, therefore it is meant only for the registered owner of the vehicle, who has been driving the vehicle at the time of damage and does not extend to any other person. Even, otherwise,  legal heir of the deceased has already claimed compensation under Employee Compensation Act, which  has been awarded in favour of the deceased legal heir, the copy of the order passed is  Exhibited as RW1/4. In view of the same, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed with cost.

8.      Rejoinder has been filed on behalf of the complainant. Evidence and written arguments are filed on behalf of parties. Submissions made on behalf of parties are heard. Material placed on record is perused .

9.      Perusal of the standard form for Commercial Vehicle Package policy reveals that “ IDV is to be treated as market value throughout the policy period without any further depreciation for the purpose of total loss/constructive total loss claims. The insured vehicle will be treated as a CTL, if the aggregate cost of retrieval and/ or repair of the vehicle subject to terms & condition of the policy exceed 75% of the IDV of the vehicle.”  The said term of  the policy makes it clear that the vehicle would be considered as complete loss or total loss only if the damage is  75% or more. From the Preliminary Surveyor Report dated 10.10.2012 annexed with the written statement, it is noticed that surveyor had not declared the vehicle as complete or total loss rather the Complainant was asked to shift the vehicle with desired repairer and call the surveyor to get this said vehicle dismantled in his presence, which was not adhered to by the Complainant.

10.  The surveyor submitted its independent loss assessment report. As per the independent assessment report the net assessed amount of the vehicle including the parts + labour is Rs. 3,07,522/-. It is settled proposition of law that the surveyor report of an independent surveyor as approved by the IRDA would be final and undisputed with regard to the loss of the damaged vehicle. Moreover, there is no reason to ignore or discard the surveyor report as the Complainant has not adduced any evidence to substantiate that the loss suffered by it was more than what was assessed by the surveyor. Therefore, in the absence of any cogent evidence produced by the complainant to prove that the loss suffered was much more than what was assessed by the surveyor this Commission is of the opinion that the report submitted by the surveyor cannot be rejected. It is seen that the surveyor report is based on the terms & conditions of the policy by which both the parties are bound.

11.    As regards the claim of the Complainant of Rs. 2,00,000/- towards life coverage ,policy is very clear that it is meant for the owner of the car and not for any other person including the driver. Moreover, it is seen that the legal heir of the deceased has already claimed compensation under Employee Compensation Act, therefore this contention of Complainant  is rejected.

12. It is also seen from the material placed before us that the complainant has sold of the salvage and has received Rs.15,200/- on account of salvage.  Receipt of the same is  filed before the Commission.

13.    In view of the facts and discussion above,  OP is directed to settle the claim as per the terms the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Therefore, OP is directed to pay  Rs.3,09,353- minus the amount of salvage i.e 3,14,153 @ 6% interest from the date of filing of this complaint within 03 months from the date of order, failing which OP shall pay Rs. 2,94,153/- @9% from the date of filing of the complaint till realization.

File be consigned to the record room after giving a copy of the order to the parties as per rules. Order be uploaded on the website.