The factual matrix of this case are that the petitioner herein was the owner of a Maruti A.C. Deluxe 800 car which was comprehensively insured with the respondent / OP Insurance Co. for the period 10.7.1999 till 9.7.2000 for a sum of Rs.95,000/-. This vehicle was stolen on 24.11.2009, i.e., only after about four months on its being insured. It is the case of the petitioner/complainant that for purposes of the insurance, the value of the 1999 Model car was estimated by agents of the Insurance Co. itself and admittedly the petitioner paid premium on the sum of Rs.95,000/- which was duly accepted by the Insurance Co. and the policy issued accordingly. After its theft, the petitioner lodged the claim with the respondent Insurance Co. but the same was not settled in spite of the efforts made by the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, knocked the door of the consumer fora by lodging the complaint with the District Forum and according to him after lodging the complaint and during its pendency only, he received a letter from the Insurance Co. regarding settlement of the claim at Rs.60,000/-, which according to the Insurance Co. was the market price of the car. The petitioner did not accept the offer of settlement made by the Insurance Co. According to the Insurance Co., the settlement was reported to have been done on the basis of the market value of the stolen car as assessed by the surveyor appointed by the OP Co. The District Forum vide its order dated 19.9.2005 allowed the complaint of the petitioner and held that the OP Insurance Co. shall pay to the complainant the entire insured amount of Rs.95,000/- along with interest @ 10% and shall also pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental torture and Rs.1100/- as litigation cost. Aggrieved by this order of the District Forum, the OP Insurance Co. preferred an appeal before the U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (‘State Commission’ for short). The State Commission vide its impugned order dated 3.4.2007 partly allowed the appeal and ordered that the OP Insurance Co. shall pay to the complainant Rs.60,000/- along with interest @ 10% within two months of the order. The aforesaid order of the District Forum stood modified to that extent. Aggrieved by the reduction in relief made by the State Commission in its impugned order, the petitioner/ complainant has filed the present revision petition praying for setting aside the impugned order passed by the State Commission.

 

2.         In view of the aforesaid background, the issue for our consideration in the present case is as to whether the value of the car should be taken as Rs.95,000/- as per the policy document or at Rs.60,000/- as assessed by the surveyor appointed by the respondent Insurance Co. It is not under dispute that the car is of 1989 model and when the insurance thereof was taken by the petitioner from the OP Insurance Co., the agents of the Co. acknowledged the value of the car at Rs.95,000/-. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner paid premium to the Insurance Co. on this value which was duly received by the OP Co. Unfortunately, the car came to be stolen just after four months of the insurance taken by the petitioner. While assessing the loss in the present case, the surveyor in his brief report (Annex.P/4 at page 23) has stated that since the car had been stolen and not available for physical inspection, its prevailing condition cannot be presumed as above average and as such, its prevailing value may well be assessed as Rs.60,000/- only which is very reasonable and justified in his opinion and hence it was recommended that the claim may be settled at Rs.60,000/- accordingly. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the insurance in question is a contract for consideration between the petitioner and the respondent Insurance Co.  At the time of entering into the contract, all the details about the vehicle in question were duly declared and made known to the Insurance Co. and after taking note thereof in the policy, the value of the car was mentioned as Rs.95,000/- on which the premium was paid. Except the use of the car for about four months, there was no other incident which would depreciate the value of the car by about 40% so as to bring it down to Rs.60,000/- as assessed by the surveyor. He further contended that even if the depreciation as per the accepted rate of 10% p.a. is applied to the car, the reduction in value should not be more than Rs.4,000/- - Rs.5,000/-. In the circumstances the District Forum had rightly accepted the complaint of the petitioner while passing its order rejecting the contentions of the Insurance Co. As regards the offer of settlement of the claim at Rs.60,000/-, learned counsel submitted that the same offer was received by the petitioner after filing of the complaint before the District Forum but it was never accepted by him towards discharge of his claim. He clarified that the amount of Rs.60,000/- in question was ordered to be paid to the petitioner as per the orders of the this Commission passed on 20.9.2007 but the same cannot be treated as acceptance of the same in full and final settlement thereof on the part of the petitioner. He therefore, submitted that in the absence of any justification for reassessing the value of the car at Rs.60,000/- without inspection of its condition or any other justifiable ground by the surveyor, the impugned order passed by the State Commission on the basis of the report of the surveyor was erroneous and uncalled for and hence cannot be sustained in the eye of law in the given facts and circumstances of this case the same, therefore, is liable for to be set aside. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent, while admitting the broad facts of this case submitted that the Insurance Co. did not object to the insured value of Rs.95,000/- but the petitioner would be indemnified for the actual loss only and according to the insured value. He, therefore, contended that the State Commission has rightly modified the order of the District Forum keeping in view the report of the surveyor and hence the same deserves to be confirmed.

 

3.         Having considered the rival contentions in the light of the undisputed factual position, we find that the only basis adopted by the Insurance Co. for offering to settle the claim at the reduced value of Rs.60,000/- is the report of the surveyor. However, the car in question having been stolen, the surveyor did not have any opportunity to inspect the condition of the car so as to arrive at a fair assessment of the value of the car. On the other hand, it is not under dispute that at the time of taking the insurance, the value of the car was declared at Rs.95,000/- and duly acknowledged and entered as such in the policy document by the Insurance Co. and premium was also paid according to this value only. In such a situation, we do not see any justification for reducing the value of the car by 40% based on the report of the surveyor which itself was based on pure guesswork and hearsay. To this extent, the State Commission erred while modifying the order of the District Forum which is well reasoned and based on the facts and circumstances of the present case. However, admittedly the vehicle had been used by the petitioner for a period of four months and to this extent, there was some reduction in its value through proportionate depreciation. Learned counsel for the respondent Co. admitted that the rate of depreciation on cars is 10% and applying the same to this case, it would be appropriate to take the modified value of the car at Rs.90,000/- which would be in keeping with the principle of indemnification according to the loss. While accepting the revision petition of the petitioner to this extent and setting aside the impugned order of the State Commission, we direct that the respondent Insurance Co. shall pay Rs.90,000/- along with interest @ 10% p.a. w.e.f. 23.2.2000 till the date of payment. Whatever part payment towards the claim had already been paid by the respondent’s Co. and received by the petitioner shall be adjusted from the decretal amount while calculating the balance amount to be released by the Insurance Co. in accordance with today’s order. In view of the order for payment of interest @ 10%, there would be no separate payment for any other compensation or cost to the petitioner. The revision petition stands partly allowed and disposed of in terms of these directions.