Dr. Vir Singh Malik vs The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/complainant against the order dated 17.07.2012 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, ''the State Commission'') in Appeal No. 1519/2010 - Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs. Dr. Vir Singh Malik by which, while allowing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was modified. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner got his car insured with OP/respondent for a period of one year commencing from 31.8.2001 to 30.8.2002 for Rs. 5,50,000/ -. On 3.2.2002, car met with an accident and car was taken for repairs to the authorized service station of the Company, who submitted estimate of repairs of about Rs. 6,25,000/ -. Surveyor appointed by OP assessed damage to the vehicle to the extent of Rs. 2,40,000/ - net of salvage on the basis that market price of the vehicle on the date of loss was between Rs. 3,90,000/ - to 4,00,000/ - and maximum salvage value of the damaged vehicle was Rs. 1,60,000/ -. Complainant not satisfied with the report of the surveyor, filed complaint before District Forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that settlement may be made as per surveyor''s report and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP to pay Rs. 5,50,000/ - along with 9% p.a. interest along with 9% p.a. interest and further awarded Rs. 20,000/ - for mental agony and Rs. 5,000/ - as litigation expenses. Appeal filed by the respondent was partly allowed by learned State Commission vide impugned order modifying order of District Forum and directed respondent to pay Rs. 4,00,000/ - including salvage value of Rs. 1,60,000/ - and rest of the order was affirmed against which, this revision petition has been filed.

HEARD learned Counsel for the parties and perused record. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that learned State Commission has committed error in reducing amount awarded by District Forum as policy was for Rs. 5,50,000/ - and it was a case of total loss; hence, revision petition be allowed and order of District Forum be restored. 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.

IT is admitted case of the parties that complainant''s vehicle was insured for a sum of Rs. 5,50,000/ - at the time of accident. Insurance coverage was from 31.8.2001 to 30.8.2002 and vehicle met with an accident on 5.2.2002 meaning thereby after 5 months of taking insurance coverage. Surveyor assessed loss on the basis of market value of the vehicle being between Rs. 3,90,000/ - to Rs. 4,00,000/ -.

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is entitled to receive compensation on the basis of value of the vehicle shown in the insurance policy because premium has been charged on that amount. He has placed reliance on : (2008) 8 SCC 279 - Dharmendra Goel Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. in which price of the vehicle shown in the insurance policy was Rs. 3,54,000/ - and surveyor assessed loss of Rs. 1,80,000/ -, but Hon''ble Apex Court allowed Rs. 3,54,000/ - after deducting Rs. 10,000/ - as deprecation for 7 months. In the case in hand, petitioner paid premium on amount of Rs. 5,50,000/ -, price of the vehicle shown in the insurance policy and compensation cannot be awarded on the basis of market price of the vehicle on the date of loss. Learned Counsel for the respondent could not place any citation in support of his contention that claim can be allowed on the basis of market price of the vehicle. When petitioner has charged premium on the declared value of the vehicle which is a contract between the parties, petitioner is not entitled to reduce payment on the basis of market price of the vehicle and learned State Commission has committed error in modifying order of District Forum and reducing payment by Rs. 1,50,000/ - on the assumption that there is tendency of the claimant to submit claim on higher side by securing false and bogus bills. In this matter, authorized service station of the company submitted estimate of repairs to the tune of Rs. 6,25,000/ - and in such circumstances, it cannot be said that petitioner has lodged his claim on higher side by securing false and bogus bills.

HON ''ble Apex Court in Dharmendra Goel''s case (supra) deducted Rs. 10,000/ - as depreciation for use of vehicle for 7 months. In the case in hand, vehicle met with an accident after 5 months and in such circumstances, looking to the value of vehicle, we deem it proper to reduce the amount payable by Rs. 20,000/ - and hold that petitioner is entitled to get Rs. 5,30,000/ -. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed partly and impugned order dated 17.7.2012 is modified and order dated 13.09.2010 passed by learned District Forum is also modified to the extent that respondent shall pay to the petitioner Rs. 5,30,000/ - instead of Rs. 5,50,000/ - and rest of the order passed by the District Forum is upheld.