NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI
REVISION PETITION No. 4100 of 2007
(From the Order dated 20.09.2007 in Appeal No. 2752/2006 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karanataka)
Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd.
Corporate Claims Dept.,
Sundaram Towers,
No.45 & 46, Whites Road,
Chennai-600 014 .. Petitioner
VERSUS
1. M/s. Shripant Motors,
New Sambra Road,
Gandhi Nagar, Belgaum,
Karnataka
2. The Jamuna Transport Co. Ltd.
11, Polilock Street,
Kolkata
3. Hindustan Motors Ltd.
Hind Motors,
Hoogly,
West Bengal .. Respondent
BEFORE: -
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN, PRESIDENT
HON’BLE MRS. VINEETA RAI, MEMBER
For the Petitioner : Mr. S.M. Tripathi and
Ms. Poonam Gupta, Advocates
For the Respondent No.1 : Mr. Ravi Panwar, Advocate
For Mr. S.N. Bhat, Advocate
For the Respondent No.2 : N E M O
For the Respondent No.3 : Mr. Rahul Chandra and Mr.
Saman Ahsan, Advocates
PRONOUNCED ON: 16.04.2012
O R D E R
ASHOK BHAN, J., PRESIDENT
Petitioner which was the Opposite Party No.1 before the District Forum has filed this Revision Petition against the order and judgment dated 20.09.07 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnataka (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in appeal No.2752/2006 whereby the State Commission upholding the order of the District Forum has directed the Petitioner to pay Rs.3,60,688/- to the Respondent No.1 towards the value of the new car along with interest @ 9% p.a. w.e.f. 30.07.05 till realization. Petitioner was also granted liberty to take steps for recovery of the said amount from the Respondent No. 2, Jamuna Transport Corporation Ltd. and Respondent Nos. 1 & 3 were directed to co-operate with the Petitioner to get the damaged vehicle registered in its name.
FACTS:-
Complainant/Respondent (hereinafter to be referred to as “Respondent No.1”) had placed an order with Hindustan Motors Ltd., Respondent No.3 herein for supply of one Ambassador Car costing about 3,60,688/- to its customer, namely Corporation Bank Belgaum. Pursuant to the said order, Respondent No.3 dispatched the Ambassador Car through a truck belonging to Jamuna Transport Corporation Ltd., Respondent No.2 herein. The said truck met with an accident while on its way to Belgaum. In the said accident, Ambassador Car carried in the truck was badly damaged. Since the Respondent No.1 had obtained a “Marine Cargo Open Policy” from the Petitioner Insurance Company it lodged a claim for payment of compensation of Rs.3,60,688/-. Petitioner, on being intimated, appointed a Surveyor to assess the loss. Surveyor in his report stated that the car could be repaired and assessed the loss at Rs.1,48,739/-. Respondent No.1 did not accept the value assessed and claimed the compensation to the extent of entire cost of the car. Petitioner thereafter repudiated the claim. Challenging the rejection of the claim, Respondent No.1 filed the complaint before the District Forum.
District Forum allowed the complaint with the following observations and directed the Petitioner to pay the full value of the car, i.e., Rs.3,60,688/- to the Respondent No.1 along with interest @ 9% p.a. from 13.07.05 till realization and cost of Rs.1500/-. Petitioner was also held entitled to retain the salvage.
“ We have perused the records. The complainant claims full value of the vehicle on the ground that his business is of sale of cars. The new car for whom it was booked denied to take delivery of a car damaged in accident. So he was supplied with brand new car. It is bounden duty of the O.P.No.1 to indemnify the whole loss. We are of the opinion that there is no any such rule or condition in the policy that the O.P No. 1 should not indemnify the loss by paying the value of new car. The O.P.No.1 has to indemnify the whole loss that is caused to the complainant by paying the full value of the car with interest and the car shall be returned with the OP.P.No.1.”
Petitioner, being aggrieved, filed the appeal before the State Commission which has been dismissed by the impugned order.
State Commission has directed the Petitioner to pay Rs.3,60,688/- to the Respondent No.1 with interest @ 9% p.a. from 30.07.05 till realization. Respondent Nos. 1 & 3 were directed to co-operate with the Petitioner to get the damaged vehicle registered in the Petitioner’s name by producing the necessary documents before the concerned Regional Transport Office.
Replying upon the “Institute Replacement Clause” of the terms and conditions of the policy, Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that the Petitioner was liable to indemnify for the loss or damage to any part or parts of an insured machine covered under the policy not exceeding the cost of replacement of the part or parts or repair of such part or pars plus servicing charges. Since the Surveyor had assessed the loss on the basis of damage caused to the part or parts of the insured vehicle, the Respondent No.1 was not entitled to get full value of the insured vehicle. The said clause reads as under:-
“Institute Replacement Clause
In the event of loss of or damage to any part or parts of an insured machine caused by a peril covered by the policy the sum recoverable shall not exceed the cost of replacement or repair of such part or parts plus charges for forwarding and refitting, if incurred, but excluding duty unless the full duty is included in the amount insured, in which case loss, if any, sustained by payment of additional duty shall also be recoverable. Provided always that in no case shall the liability of underwriters exceed the insured value of the complete machine. “
We do not find any substance in the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner. Petitioner has not been able to explain as to what is “Institute Replacement Clause”. Moreover, in the present case, there was damage not to the part or parts of the insured vehicle but it was a case of total loss to the vehicle in the accident. The vehicle in question was a new vehicle and it was not registered with the Regional Transport Office. The said car was to be delivered to the Corporation Bank and if the Bank was to know that the car had suffered damage it would not come forward to purchase the same. Under these circumstances, Respondent No.1 was entitled for compensation to the extent of entire value of the car. Plea taken by the Petitioner that it was liable to indemnify the expenses incurred for repair of the vehicle only, cannot be accepted. We do not find any merit in the Revision Petition and dismiss the same with costs which we assess at Rs.5,000/-.
….. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(ASHOK BHAN J.)
PRESIDENT
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(VINEETA RAI)
MEMBER
Yd/*
