Per Mrs. M. Shreesha, Member

          Aggrieved by the order dated 25.11.2015 in CC No.39 of 2013 passed by the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Commission, Hyerabad, (in short “the State Commission”), the General Manager, HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Limited and its Regional Claims Manager, the first and  second Opposite Party respectively, (in short “the Insurance Company”) preferred this Appeal u/s 19 of the Consumer Protection Act (for short “the Act”).

2.       The facts in brief are that the Complainant was the owner of Ford Endeavour-XLT 4X2  and is covered by the Insurance Policy valid for the period 02.11.2011 to 01.11.2012.  While so, the car met with an accident on 20.04.2012 at Garladinne Village of Ananthapur District, when the driver was trying to avoid a collusion with a buffalo which suddenly came across the road.  At the time of the accident the vehicle was being driven by the Complainant’s friend KV Nagi Reddy.  A FIR was lodged in Garladinne Police Station and the vehicle was sent for repairs to M/s Ritvika Cars Pvt. Ltd., an authorized showroom of Ford Automobile company.  The showroom assessed the damage to the tune of ₹30,96,081/- including spare parts, labour charges and Sales Tax.  A claim was made to the Insurance Company.  The Insurance Company sent a letter dated 31.05.2012 to the Complainant by which he was informed that a final surveyor was being deputed to assess the damage. The Complainant was asked to produce his Driving License on the presumption that he was driving the car.  The Complainant  on 06.06.2012 replied to the effect that he was not driving the vehicle at the time of the accident.  A certificate issued by the police station was also enclosed with the said letter.  The Complainant addressed another letter dated 09.07.2012 and followed it by a Legal Notice dated 02.08.2012.  The Insurance Company refused to furnish the information required by the Complainant vide its letter dated 02.08.2012 stating therein that the said information required was confidential.  The Complainant approached IRDA on 25.08.2012 and his Complaint was registered on 01.09.2012.  On the same date the Complainant was informed by the Insurance Company that his Complaint was forwarded to the Grievance Officer.  Finally he was informed vide letter dated 11.09.2012 that his Complaint was resolved and once again he was called to furnish his driving licence.  Vexed with their attitude, the Complainant approached the State Commission seeking the following reliefs:

“1. Opposite Parties 1 & 2 be directed to pay the said sum of ₹30,96,081/- towards repairing charges;

2. Opposite Parties 1 & 2 be directed to pay a sum of ₹2,00,000/- towards compensation;

3. Opposite Parties 1 & 2 be directed to pay a sum of ₹2,94,000/- towards damages for 294 days @ ₹1,000/- per day from 20.04.2012 to 18.02.2013;

4.  Opposite Parties No. 1 & 2 be directed to pay future damages @ ₹1,000/- per day from 19.02.2013 till the car is repaired and handed over to the Complainant;

5. Costs of the Complaint be awarded &

6. Any other such orders as may be deemed just and necessary in the circumstances of the case.”

2.       The Insurance Company filed its Written Version stating that the vehicle was driven by the Complainant himself and that the Certificate issued by the police  is of no relevance.  It was further stated that the Complainant had no valid and effective Driving License and, therefore, included his friend’s name as the driver of the vehicle at the time of the accident only to get compensation.  The assessment of repairs of ₹30,96,081/- was denied and it was averred that the car was driven by an unlicensed driver.  It was pleaded that the Complainant had violated the terms and conditions of the policy and therefore there was no deficiency of service on their part in repudiating the claim. 

3.       The State Commission based on the evidence adduced allowed the Complaint in part directing the Insurance Company as follows:-

          “i) Opposite parties 1 and 2 jointly and severally shall pay to the Complainant a sum of ₹12,42,500/- towards the total loss of the vehicle;

          ii) Opposite parties 1 and 2 jointly and severally shall pay to the Complainant a sum of ₹2,00,000/- towards compensation;

          iii) Opposite parties 1 and 2 jointly and severally shall pay to the Complainant a sum of ₹88,200/- towards the damages for the period from 20.04.2012 to 18.02.2013;

          iv) Opposite parties 1 and 2 jointly and severally shall pay to the Complainant a sum of ₹3,03,000/- towards the future damages for the period from 19.02.2013 till date i.e. 25.11.2015;

          v) Opposite parties 1 and 2 jointly and severally shall also pay to the Complainant a sum of ₹5,000/- towards costs of this Complaint;

          vi) Opposite parties 1 and 2 jointly and severally shall comply with this order within three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order, and in default the afore-said amounts shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from today till realization; 

4.       The Learned Counsel for the Appellant Insurance Company vehemently contended that the Licenced Driver was brought at a later stage only to cover up the fact that the Complainant did not posses a Driving Licence.  He also drew our attention to the Police Certificate in which it was stated that there were no injuries, whereas the Certificate issued by the Ambulance shows that the accident had occurred on 20.04.2012 at about 6 a.m. and there were injuries.  He further contended that the Ambulance Report states that the Complainant and Mr.Ramesh were present at the accident site.  It was submitted that the Complainant had stated that the journey started from Tirupathi at 9 p.m., on 19.04.2012 whereas K.V.Nagi Reddy stated that they started at Ananthapur at 6 a.m. on 20.04.2012  and, therefore, according to them this discrepancy would prove that they were not traveling together.  We do not find any infirmity in the finding of the State Commission that Mr.K.V.Nagireddy had joined at Ananthapur and the journey started at Tirupathi on 19.04.2012 and there is no contradiction since the accident occurred on the next day at 6 a.m. near Ananthapur which is on the way to Hyderabad.  The ambulance arrived at location at 07:03:51 hours and reached the hospital at 7:33:51 hours. The Complainant was left at GGH Hospital, Ananthapur and went back to CHC at 8.30 hours.  The accident was reported before 10 a.m.  In the said report given to the police it was clearly stated that Mr.K.V.Nagireddy was driving the vehicle.  We do not find any documentary evidence to rebut this contention of the Complainant that Mr.K.V.Nagriredy was driving the vehicle.  The argument of the learned Counsel for the Insurance Company that Mr.K.V.Nagireddy was deliberately set up only to cover up the fact that the Complainant did not have Driving Licence is unsubstantiated by any proof.  The Company Show Room i.e. M/s Ritvika Cars Pvt Ltd., the Opposite Party No.3 assessed the damage at ₹30,96,081/-.  According to the Surveyor, the repair would cost ₹7,16,713/-.  It is an admitted fact that the cost of the vehicle was ₹15,99,000/- and the IDV of the vehicle was ₹12,42,500/-.  Since the assessed amount exceeds 75% of the IDV the damage is considered to be a ‘total loss’ and hence we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order of the State Commission in directing the Insurance Company to pay the IDV of ₹12,42,500/- towards total loss of the vehicle.  Having awarded the IDV, the default interest at 9% per annum and costs of ₹5,000/- we are of the considered view that ₹88,200/- awarded towards damages for the period 20.04.2012 to 08.02.2013 and also damages of ₹30,300/- awarded for the period 19.02.2013 till 25.11.2015 is excessive as we observe from the record that additional amount of ₹2,00,000/- was also awarded towards compensation for mental agony.  Hence we set aside the third and fourth directions given by the State Commission with respect to ₹88,200/- and ₹30,300/- while confirming the rest of the order of the State Commission. 

5.       In the result, this Appeal is allowed in part and the order of the State Commission is modified to the extent noted above.  It is observed that vide Order dated 08.02.2016 the operation of the impugned order was stayed subject to deposit of ₹6 lakhs before the State Commission.  Needless to add, the Complainant is entitled for release of the said amount with interest accrued thereon and the same shall stand adjusted from the decretal amount.  The statutory amount deposited at the time of filing of the Appeal shall stand transferred to the Consumer Legal Aid Account.