Rajasthan

StateCommission

CC/79/2017

Durga Ram s/o Ladu Ram Jat - Complainant(s)

Versus

United India Ins. Co. Ltd. Through Manager - Opp.Party(s)

Pramod Kumar

17 Oct 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

COMPLAINT CASE NO: 79/2017

 

Durgaram s/o Laduram r/o 501, Singhion ki Dhani, Lakshman Nagar Post Chari Tehsil Phalodi Distt. Jodhpur.

Vs.

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch office Fort Road, Nagaur & ors.

 

Date of Order 17.10.2019

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

Mrs.Meena Mehta-Member

 

Mr. Pramod Kumar counsel for the complainant

Mr. Shubham Arora counsel for the non-applicants

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

 

This complaint has been filed on 20.7.2017 with the contention that complainant is the registered owner of vehicle

2

 

no. RJ 21 GB 3681. A comprehensive package policy was purchased. The vehicle was get accidented on 14.10.2016. Spot survey was conducted. Final survey has been done by Surveyor Mr.Sunil Mathur but the case of the complainant regarding total loss has not been considered. The estimated cost of the repairs is Rs. 25,41,804/- hence, the claim should be allowed on total loss basis.

 

Per contra the contention of the non-applicant is that as per the survey report the vehicle could be repaired and the surveyor has assessed the loss at Rs. 10,49,558/- and further more the complainant has not submitted the relevant documents inspite of the notice. Vehicle has not been get repaired and even not submitted for re-inspection. Hence, the insurance company is not deficient.

 

Both the parties entered into evidence. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

 

There is no dispute about the fact that the vehicle was insured and it was damaged on 14.10.2016. The contention of the complainant is that in spot survey it has been

3

 

mentioned regarding chassis that “ No direct impact on chassis but it may loose its strength due to heat, need detail inspection after striping” and further more the final surveyor has also observed that the chassis has lost its usefulness. Inspite of this in part description in item no. 32, 33, 73 & 74 no claim is allowed for rear axle and front axle and the contention of the complainant is that axel is the part of the chassis whereas the contention of the non-applicant is that axel is not the part of the chassis, axels were not damaged. Surveyor has rightly allowed the claim for opening and re-fitting of chassis and further for axel also opening and re-fitting charges are allowed.

 

As per the meaning of the chassis, a vehicle without body is known as chassis. The components of the vehicle like power plant, axel etc........... are mounted on chassis and further components of chassis are defined 1. Frame 2. Engine 3. Cluch 4. Shaft 5. Differential 6. Universal joints 7. Steering and 8. Wheel meaning thereby that axel is not part of the chassis. Hence, the contention of the complainant that chassis was get damaged inspite of this no amount was allowed for axel has no co-relation.

 

4

 

The counsel for the non-applicant has rightly relied upon Anx. R 3 whereby the surveyor has intimated the complainant to get the vehicle repair and through letter dated 28.2.2017 Anx. R 4 certain documents were also asked but the complainant has not submitted the required documents. Another notice Anx. R 8 was also issued inspite of this repairs have not been made.

 

It is true that the complainant has submitted Anx. 7 estimate of repairs as Rs. 25,41,804/- but non-applicant has rightly relied upon the judgment passed by the National Commission in Revision Petition No. 2370/2013 Virender Kumar Vs. Bharati Axa General Insurance where the National Commission was of the opinion that on the basis of the estimate given by a private company, surveyor's report cannot be disbelieved. The non-applicant has rightly pointed out that where the aggregate cost of the repair of the vehicle exceed 75% of the IDV then it will cover under the category of total loss.

 

The other contention of the non-applicant is that complainant is not ready to repair the vehicle and he only

5

 

interested in getting the money as total loss and when actual repair bills have not been submitted, they are not deficient and reliance has rightly been placed on the judgment passed by the National Commission in Revision Petition No. 3217/2014 IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Vs. Beena Raghav where the National Commission has held that when the vehicle has not been repaired and actual repair bills have not been submitted, the insurance company is not deficient which is the case here.

 

The complainant has relied upon IV (2009) CPJ 46 (SC) New India Assurance Co. Vs. Pradeep Kumar where the apex court has stated that surveyor's report is not the last and final word. There is no dispute about this preposition but here in the present case the surveyor has assessed the loss after giving due weightage to all the parts of the vehicle, loss and labour charges also.

 

The non-applicant has also pointed out that for tyres no claim is allowed by the surveyor because as per the condition no. IMT 21 the insurance company was not liable for the damage of the tyres except in case of total loss and here in the

6

 

present case as per the report of the surveyor no case is made out for total loss.

 

In view of the above, the complainant could not show any deficiency on the part of the non-applicant and complaint stands dismissed.

 

(Meena Mehta) (Nisha Gupta)

Member President

nm