Accident claim = when the drivers licence was not valid and was not renewed at the time of accident, petitioner is not entitled to 75% of the claim on non-standard basis and respondent has not committed any error in repudiating claim.

published in http://164.100.72.12/ncdrcrep/judgement/0013092511482503RP75-7613.htm

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

                                                NEW DELHI       

REVISION PETITION NO. 75-76 OF 2013

(From the order dated 08.11.2012 in Appeal No. FA/12/95 & FA/12/98 of the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pandri, Raipur)

Alok Waghe

S/o Shri S.D. Waghe

R/o LIG, Tatibandh,

Raipur, Ditrict Raipur

(C.G.)                                                                   …Petitioner/Complainant       

          Versus

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Through: Branch Manager,

Shimangal Bhawan, Pandri

Raipur, District Raipur

(C.G.)                                                               …Respondent/Opp. Party (OP)

BEFORE

     HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER

     HON’BLE DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER

For the Petitioner      :      Mr. R.K. Bhawnani, Advocate

 PRONOUNCED ON  25^th September,  2013

 

O R D E R

 PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER

Both these revisions arise out of judgement dated 8.11.2012 in appeals filed against judgement of the District Forum.  Accordingly, the revisions were heard together and are being disposed of by common order.

These revision petitions have been filed by the petitioners/Complainants against the order dated 08.11.2012 passed by the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in Appeal No. FA/12/95  – Alok Waghe Vs. Bajaj Allianz Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd. and in Appeal No. FA/12/98 – Bajaj Allianz General Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs. Alok Waghe by which, while dismissing appeal of the complainant, appeal of OP was allowed and order of District Forum allowing complaint was set aside and complaint dismissed.

2.      Brief facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner owner of vehicle C.G.04/G-4139 got his vehicle insured from OP/respondent for a period of one year commencing from 5.9.2008 to 4.9.2009.  Vehicle met with an accident on 16.12.2008 and report was lodged with the Police and intimation was given to OP-Insurance Co.  Claim was lodged with the OP, but claim was repudiated.  Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that driver of the vehicle was not holding valid driving licence at the time of accident which amounted to violation of terms of insurance policy; hence, claim was repudiated rightly and prayed for dismissal of complaint.  Learned District forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP to pay 75% of the IDV value i.e. Rs.2,85,000/- on non-standard basis.  Both the parties filed appeal before State Commission and appeal filed by the complainant was dismissed but appeal filed by OP was allowed and complaint was dismissed by impugned order against which, these revision petitions have been filed.

3.      Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused record.

4.      Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that driver of the vehicle was not disqualified from driving the vehicle at the time of accident and merely because licence was not renewed on the date of accident, petitioner was not disentitled to get claim on non-standard basis and learned District Forum rightly allowed the claim but learned State Commission has committed error in allowing appeal and dismissing complaint; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside.  On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed.

5.      It is admitted case of the parties that on the date of accident, vehicle was insured with the respondent. It is also not disputed that driver of the vehicle at the time of accident was not possessing valid driving licence, as his licence had validity upto 16.8.2007 and later on it was renewed on 8.5.2009.  Licence of the driver was not got renewed for the period from 17.8.2007 to 7.5.2009, whereas accident occurred on 16.12.2008. Thus, it becomes clear that on the date of accident, driver was not possessing valid driving licence.

6.      Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that though licence was not renewed on the date of accident but as driver of the vehicle was not disqualified from driving petitioner was entitled to get compensation on non-standard basis.  

He placed his reliance on (2010) 4 SCC 536 – Amalendu Sahoo Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Perusal of aforesaid citation clearly reveals that in that case one of the employees of the tenant of the complainant approached the complainant to handover the aforesaid vehicle for few hours for urgent use and no rent was charged by the complainant from the tenant for the use of vehicle. The vehicle met with an accident and in such circumstances, 75% claim was allowed on non-standard basis. 

This citation does not help to the cause of the petitioner because driver was not holding valid driving licence at the time of accident.  

In III (2008) CPJ 191 (NC) United India Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs. Arvind Kumar and III (2010) CPJ 256 (NC), National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sansar Chand, this Commission held that if driver of the vehicle was not possessing valid driving licence to drive that particular type of vehicle at the time of accident, Insurance Company is not liable to reimburse damages to the vehicle.

7.      In the light of aforesaid judgements it becomes clear that 

when the drivers licence was not valid and was not renewed at the time of accident, petitioner is not entitled to 75% of the claim on non-standard basis and respondent has not committed any error in repudiating claim.

8.      We do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and revision petitions are liable to be dismissed.

9.      Consequently, revision petitions filed by the petitioners are dismissed with no order as to costs.    

………………Sd/-……………

( K.S. CHAUDHARI, J)

 PRESIDING MEMBER

..……………Sd/-………………

( DR. B.C. GUPTA )

 MEMBER

k

Accident claim = whether; petitioner was entitled to receive Rs.5,00,000/- the amount for which vehicle was insured, or to get market price.= In the present case, as per surveyor G.S. Advani & Co. report, total cost of the repairs of the vehicle was Rs.3,05,000/- and market value of the vehicle was Rs.2,35,000/-. As per report of The Institute of Insurance Surveyors & Adjusters (Mumbai), Pune Unit, market value of damaged vehicle was Rs.2,35,000/- and salvage value of the vehicle was Rs.65,000/-. This report was given by the Committee of 3-independent surveyors after inspecting the vehicle and inquiry from market. In such circumstances, it can be presumed that value of the vehicle was around Rs.2,35,000/- and as per Condition No.4 of the insurance policy, petitioner was entitled only to receive Rs.2,35,000/-. In our judgment inDr. Vir Singh Malik Vs. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (Supra) case insured amount was allowed after depreciation because neither such condition was brought to our notice, nor report of independent surveyor regarding value of vehicle was placed. 11. In such circumstances, petitioner is not entitled to receive remaining Rs.2,63,500/-. Learned State Commission has not committed any error in dismissing appeal and upholding order of District forum dismissing complaint, though on other grounds. 12. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed with no order as to costs.

published in http://164.100.72.12/ncdrcrep/judgement/00130923110701918RP132008.htm

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

                                                NEW DELHI       

REVISION PETITION NO. 1320 OF 2008

(From the order dated 02.11.2007 in Appeal No. 863/2001 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai, Circuit Bench at Aurangabad)

Mrs. Laxmi Ramesh Sarda

Partner in M/s. Zumberlal Sitaram Sarda,

Sarda Lane, Ahmednagar                   …Petitioner/Complainant       

 Versus

The Manager

United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Divisional Office, Kisan Kranti Bldg.,

Market Yard, Ahmednagar                            …Respondent/Opp. Party (OP)

BEFORE

     HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER

     HON’BLE DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER

For the Petitioner      :      Mr. Jitendra Kumar, Advocate

 For the Respondent  :       Mr. S.K. Ray, Advocate

PRONOUNCED ON  23^rd September,  2013

 

O R D E R

 PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/Complainant against the order dated 02.11.2007 passed by the State Consumer Disputes RedressalCommission, Mumbai, Circuit Bench at Aurangabad (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in Appeal No. 863/2001 – Mrs. Laxmi Ramesh Sarda Vs. The Manager, United India Ins. Co. Ltd. by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum dismissing complaint was upheld.

2.      Brief facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner purchased CIELO passenger car for Rs.5,47,000/- on 15.6.1996.  Car was insured with the OP/respondent for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- for a period of one year commencing from 21.7.98 to 20.7.99.  On 15.7.1999, car met with an accident and car was totally smashed and damaged and was a case of total loss.  Claim was submitted to the OP and OP finally paid Rs.2,36,500/- by cheque dated 15.11.1999 which was accepted by complainant under protest as Rs.2,36,500/- has been paid less.  Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum.  OP contested complaint and submitted that amount of Rs.2,36,500/- was accepted by the complainant as full and final satisfaction; hence, complaint is not maintainable.  It was further submitted that vehicle was purchased in the year 1996 and its value could not have been Rs.5,00,000/- at the time of issuance of policy.  It was further submitted that market price of the vehicle as per surveyor’s report was Rs.2,35,000/- and Rs.2,36,500/- has already been paid; hence,    no deficiency on the part of OP and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties dismissed complaint against which, appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which this revision petition has been filed.

3.      Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused record.

4.      Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as it was a case of total loss, petitioner was entitled to receive full value of the vehicle for which it was insured and learned State Commission has committed error in dismissing appeal and leaned District Forum committed error in dismissing complaint       on the basis of payment as full and final satisfaction; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside.  On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed.

5.      It is admitted case of the parties that vehicle was purchased on 15.6.1996 for Rs.5,47,000/- and was insured for Rs.5,00,000/- on 21.7.1998. It is also admitted case that on account of accident on 15.7.1999, car was totally smashed and damaged and it was the case of total loss. 

Now, the question is 

whether; petitioner was entitled to receive Rs.5,00,000/-  the amount for which vehicle was insured, or to get market price.

6.      As far as payment of Rs.2,36,500/- as full and final settlement, perusal of record clearly reveals that amount was accepted by the petitioner under protest without prejudice.  

In such circumstances, it cannot be said that petitioner received this amount as full and final satisfaction and in such circumstances, complaint was maintainable.         

7.      As far as amount payable is concerned, as per insurance policy, vehicle was insured for Rs.5,00,000/-, but as per Surveyor, G.S. Advani & Co. total repair cost was Rs.3,05,000/- and market value  of the vehicle was Rs.2,35,000/- including salvage of Rs.65,000/-.  As per The Institute of Insurance Surveyors & Adjusters (Mumbai), Pune Unit, the market value of the insured vehicle was around Rs.2,35,000/-. This opinion was given by 3-Member Committee after inspecting the vehicle and enquiring market value of the vehicle from various sources and in such circumstances, we assume that market value of the vehicle on the date of accident was around Rs.2,35,000/-. 

8.      The short question to be decided is 

whether petitioner is entitled to receive insured value or market value.   

9.      Learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on judgement dated 3.9.2013 in R.P. No. 4279 of 2012 – Dr. Vir Singh Malik Vs. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. in which it was held that insured is entitled to receive compensation on the basis of value shown in insurance policy after deducting some depreciation.  On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent placed reliance on II (1992) CPJ 484 (NC) – Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. SureshArjun Karande in which it was held that as per Condition No. 4 of the insurance policy, insured is entitled to receive value specified in the policy or value of the vehicle at the time of damage, whichever is less.  Condition No. 4 of the insurance policy runs as under:

“4.     The  company may at its own option repair, reinstate or replace the motor vehicle or part thereof and / or its accessories or may pay in cash the amount of the loss or damage and the liability of the company shall not exceed the actual value of the parts damaged or loss less depreciation for the reasonable cost of fitting and shall in no case exceed the insured estimate of the value of the motor vehicle (including accessories thereon) specified in the schedule or value of the motor vehicle (including accessories thereon) at the time of the loss or damage whichever is less.

This condition makes it clear that in case of total damage to the insured vehicle, insured is entitled to receive insured value of the vehicle or value of the motor vehicle at the time of loss whichever is less. 

10.    This Commission in II (1992) CPJ 484 (NC) – Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Suresh Arjun Karande has 

held that the State Commission was not right in awarding to the complainant the full amount mentioned in the policy and further held that surveyors should submit their separate and independent reports to the General Insurance Corporation and ascertain market value of the vehicle.  

In the present case, as per surveyor G.S. Advani & Co. report, total cost of the repairs of the vehicle was Rs.3,05,000/- and market value of the vehicle was Rs.2,35,000/-.  

As per report of The Institute of Insurance Surveyors & Adjusters (Mumbai), Pune Unit, market value of damaged vehicle was Rs.2,35,000/- and salvage value of the vehicle was Rs.65,000/-.  

This report was given by the Committee of 3-independent surveyors after inspecting the vehicle and inquiry from market.  

In such circumstances, it can be presumed that value of the vehicle was around Rs.2,35,000/- and as per Condition No.4 of the insurance policy, petitioner was entitled only to receive Rs.2,35,000/-.  

In our judgment inDr. Vir Singh Malik Vs. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (Supra) case insured amount was allowed after depreciation because neither such condition was brought to our notice, nor report of independent surveyor regarding value of vehicle was placed.

11.    In such circumstances, petitioner is not entitled to receive remaining Rs.2,63,500/-.  

Learned State Commission has not committed any error in dismissing appeal and upholding order of District forum dismissing complaint, though on other grounds.

12.    Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed with no order as to costs. 

………………Sd/-……………

( K.S. CHAUDHARI, J)

 PRESIDING MEMBER

..……………Sd/-………………

( DR. B.C. GUPTA )

 MEMBER

k