08-09-2015 - The reasons for delay in disposal of this appeal can be seen from the order sheet.

1.       Due to long and uncertain period of absence of the Members, single member bench of President is functioning in their absence, in view of the order of Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition No. 4434 of 2014, in the matter of Mr. Netaji Surrendra Mohan Nayyar -vs- Citibank; and the judgement passed by Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the W.P. (C) No. 30939 of 2010 (N) P.K. Jose -vs- M. Aby & ors.

2.       Inspite of fixing this case for passing ex-parte order, nobody appears for the O.Ps.-respondents

3.       Heard  learned counsel appearing for the appellant.

4.       He submitted that at least the appellant was entitled for the amount assessed by the surveyor i.e. Rs. 2,32,000/-.

5.       The appellant- complainant filed present case claiming insurance claim on total loss basis i.e. Rs. 4,49,445/-, against the accident of her vehicle.

6.       According to the O.P.1-R.1 ( Insurance Company for short), the complainant was not entitled to claim on total loss basis, as the surveyor  assessed the loss at Rs. 2,32,000/-which was less  than 75% of the Insured Declared Value (I.D.V) i.e. Rs. 4,49,445/-. Further the complainant should have got the vehicle repaired and furnished the repairing bills, which could be settled as per the insurance policy, but she insisted for settlement of claim on total loss basis.

7.       After hearing the parties and considering their respective cases in detail, learned District Forum interalia held as follows. The complainant could not prove her claim of total loss. Further she was not entitled to claim total loss on the basis of the estimate of repairing i.e. Rs. 3,09,141/- furnished by the authorized dealer of the vehicle. She could not prove the amount of loss. The amount assessed by the surveyor also cannot be awarded, as there may be difference in the actual expenses of repairing and the estimate of repairing.

The learned District Forum was informed by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant that the vehicle in question was sold in the damaged condition.

 But the sale amount was not disclosed.

 However, it awarded Rs. 1,53,248/- being amount admitted by the Insurance Company before the Permanent Lok Adalat and awarded interest of Rs. 16,752/- for making a round figure of Rs. 1,70,000/- and directed the Insurance Company to pay Rs. 1,70,000/-. The Insurance Company was directed to inform the concerned Bank who hypothecated the vehicle and if any amount is due to the Bank, the same was to be paid from the said amount or on the basis of no objection letter of the Bank, the said amount was to be  paid to the complainant  on taking an Indemnity Bond of Rs. 2,00,000/-

8.       During the course of argument, Mr. D.K. Jha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant admitted that the complainant sold the damaged vehicle during the pendency of this case.

9.       In the circumstances, she cannot claim the amount assessed by the surveyor, as there is no question of repairing the vehicle, now, after it’s sale.

10.     The learned District Forum has rightly awarded the amount admitted by the Insurance Company before Permanent Lok Adalat, with litigation cost, compensation and interest.

11.     In my opinion, no grounds are made out for interference with the impugned order. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. 

          Issue free copy of this order to all concerned for information and needful.

             Ranchi,

             Dated:- 08-09-2015