Between

The New India Assurance Co.Ltd.,
H.No.2-2-2/D, Opp. Modern High School,
Mahaboobnagar, rep. by its Branch Manager

                                                        Appellant/opposite party

        A N D

Tallapally Lingaiah,
Asst. Divisional Engineer,
APCPDCL,H.No.1-6-141/9/2/D5,
Road No.4, Vidyanagar, Suryapet-13
Nalgonda Dist. A.P.

                                                        Respondent/complainant

Counsel for the Appellant                     Smt M.Seetha Devi

Counsel for the Respondent                  Sri Vakkanti Narasimha Rao

               QUORUM:   HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT

SMT M.SHREESHA, HON’BLE MEMBER
                            &

                       SRI R.LAKSHMINARSIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER

                                        FRIDAY THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST                   

                                                 TWO THOUSAND ELEVAN

Oral Order ( As per R.Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member)
                                                ***

1.     The New India Assurance Company Limited is the appellant.  The appeal is challenge to the order of the District Forum which has awarded a sum of `4,24,420/- towards the sum assured under the policy with interest @ 9% per annum from 18.11.2009, `25,000/- towards compensation and `5,000/- towards costs.

2.     The respondent had obtained insurance policy bearing No.611501/31/08/01/00005021 for his car bearing registration No.22L6543 for the period from 29.1.2009 till 28.1.2010, for a sum of `4,24,920/-.  The respondent was traveling in his car, it met with an accident on 17.2.2009 whereon he had intimated the appellant insurance company which had deputed a surveyor who inspected the vehicle at the spot and thereafter the respondent had shifted the vehicle to the garage of M/s KUN Automobile Private Limited Hyderabad which had given estimate to the extent of `5,76,738.97. 

3.     The respondent has contended that despite his submitting the policy, copies of RC, Driving License and inquest report, the appellant company had not settled his claim. 

4.     It is contended on behalf of the company that the car was insured with it by the financier, the State Bank of India, Mahabubnagar Branch and after conducting the investigation, it had informed the respondent on 18.11.2009 that it had approved his claim on total loss basis and it has addressed a letter dated 18.11.2009 to the respondent stating that the claim was approved on total loss basis and requested the respondent to produce relevant documents for settlement of the claim which the respondent has submitted on 27.11.2009 and requested through a letter to pay the workshop parking rent of `24,000/- for which the appellant company informed him that on 3.12.2009 that the amount of `24,000/- was paid towards garage charges from the claim amount and also it had informed him that a cheque for balance amount of `4,00,420/- was drawn in favour of SBI, Mahabubnagar and requested him to produce the relevant documents which the respondent failed to submit to the appellant company.  It is contended that in terms of conditions of the policy the appellant coampny is not liable to make any payment in respect of consequential loss, depreciation, wear and tear etc., and that the amount for protection and removal of the car to the nearest repairer will not exceed `1,500/- in respect of one accident and also as per the schedule of the policy age wise depreciation will follow for the purpose of total loss/constructive total loss.

5.     The respondent has filed his affidavit and documents Exs.A1 to A17.  On behalf of the appellant company its Divisional Manager, K.Krishna has filed his affidavit and got marked Private Car Package Policy as EX.B1. 

6.     The point for consideration is whether the appellant company was deficient in making settlement of the claim?

7.     The respondent’s ownership of the car, the insurance coverage extended under the insurance policy by the appellant company for the respondent’s car and the car meeting with an accident on 17.2.2009 near Suryapet has not been disputed.  It is not disputed that on receipt of intimation of the accident from the respondent, the appellant company deputed a surveyor who had advised the amount on total loss basis.  The appellant company and the respondent are bound by the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy.  The total loss claim as per the terms of the policy has to be assessed taking into consideration of  age wise depreciation of the vehicle as also on the costs of `1,500/- protection and removal of the vehicle to the nearest repairer.

8.     The appellant company addressed letter dated  3.12.2009 informing the respondent that  it had paid an amount of `24,000/- from the claim amount to the garage owner and it had informed the respondent that it had prepared cheque for balance amount of `4,00,420/- in favour of SBI, Mahabubnagar Branch and requested him to produce the relevant documents.  Thus, the appellant company has contended that it was not deficient in rendering its service to the respondent in regard to the settlement of the claim. 

9.     A cheque dated 30.11.2009 for Rs.4,00,420/- has been drawn on SBI, Mahabubnagar to the credit of the respondent’s account bearing No.30115727375.  KUN Automobiles Pvt Ltd., had issued receipt on 4.12.2009 favouring the appellant company and acknowledging the amount of Rs.24,000/- towards parking charges of the insured car.  It is made clear by the letter dated 18.9.2009 addressed to the appellant company that the respondent had given his consent for settlement of his claim on total loss basis for `4,24,420/- As a result of negotiations held between the parties, the respondent had given his consent for settlement of his claim for the aforesaid amount and he had undertaken to surrender the damaged wreck to the appellant company and clear the dues to the financier as also to submit NOC from the financier and execute the transfer form in favour of the appellant company for the purpose of transfer of ownership of the vehicle in favour of the appellant company.  On the part of the appellant company, we do not see any negligence in settlement of the claim.  On the other hand the respondent had not submitted the relevant document to release the balance claim amount in favour of his financier, the State Bank of India and he had not submitted the transfer forms of the car for transfer of ownership in favour of the appellant company. If not, the no objection certificate, at least the transfer forms as also RC ought to have been submitted by the respondent to the appellant company.  In the circumstances, we do not find the finding recorded by the District Forum as proper and justifiable as also imposition of interest and an amount of `25,000/- on the appellant company. 

10.    The appellant company had deposited an amount of `4,00,420/- during the pendency of the appeal and the respondent was permitted to withdraw the amount on submitting the No Objection Certificate, RC and Forms 28, 29 and 30.  Accordingly, the respondent had submitted Forms, 28,29,30,34 and 25 and had withdrawn the amount of `4,00,420/-.  The appellant company had already paid the amount of `24,000/- to the garage owner towards car parking charges and thus a total amount of `4,24,420/- has been received by the respondent towards settlement of his claim.  According to the respondent, he has declared the value of the vehicle at `4,25,000/- at the time of obtaining the insurance policy.  Therefore, in any view of the matter, the respondent is not entitled to a sum more than the value of IDV which he has already received.  The appellant company is entitled to receive form Nos. 28,29,30,34 and 25 and RC of the vehicle submitted by the respondent before this commission.

        In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.  The order of the district Forum is modified and the amount payable to the respondent is restricted to `4,24,420/- which has been received by the respondent.  The appellant company is at liberty to receive the transfer forms and RC produced by the respondent before this Commission.   There shall be no order as to costs. 

                                                                            Sd/-

                                                                        PRESIDENT

                                                                           Sd/-

                                                                        MEMBER

                                                                           Sd/-

                                                                        MEMBER

                                                                      Dt.05.08.2011

KMK*