National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs DEEPAK ASSOCIATES

THIS is an appeal against the order of the State Commission, Tamil Nadu at Madras in the complaint No. 152/92 by which the Insurance Co. i.e. the appellants herein, were directed to pay the respondent Rs. 5,50,000/- with interest thereon at the rate of 9% from 4.1.1990 till payment. Rs. 1,000/- towards costs was also awarded.

THE facts of the case as found by the State Commission are that the respondent is the owner of a Mercedez Benz Car bearing registration TSB No. 4514. He has taken a policy of comprehensive insurance over the aforsaid car under policy No. 500200/51012606 with the opposite party, Insurance Company, for a sum of Rs. 5,50,000/- though the market value was about Rs. 10,000/. While the policy was in force the car met with an accident on 3.10.1989 near Guntarur in which the driver met with instantaneous death and the complainant and his employee Mr. Raghuraman, who were travelling in the car were injured. THE matter was reported to the opposite party/appellant herein and relevant papers were submitted on 4.10.1989. One Mr. Bhairavamurthy was appointed Surveyor by the opposite party, Insurance Company who surveyed the vehicle on 19.2.1989 and gave his report on 30.4.1990. His report grossly undervalued the loss and the complainant questioned the correctness of the report and wrote to the Manager of the opposite party. THEreupon the opposite party appointed Mr. G. Ramamurthy to conduct a resurvey. THE re-survey was done in the month of September, 1990 and the report was submitted in January, 1991. Inspite of the letters of the complainant dated 19.3.1991, 24.4.1991, Telex dated 26.6.1990 and another letter dated 5.9.1991, the claim was not settled. Hence the complainant claimed the insured value of the car Rs. 5,50,000/- with interest thereon. According to the appellant, Insurance Co. after the first Surveyor report, where the loss was assessed under 3 modes : (a) Total loss Rs. 3,50,000/- (b) Repair loss Rs. 3,46,000/- cash loss Rs. 2,00,000/, the respondent insured was not satisfied and so a second surveyor was appointed the second Surveyor in his report dated 1st January, 1991 assessed the loss under3 modes (a) repair basis Rs. 5,96,915.44/- (b) total loss basis (subject to salvage value as disposal) Rs. 5,50,000/; and (c) Cash loss basis Rs. 3,00,000/- to this the respondent agreed on Rs. 3,00,000/- by letter dated 17.11.1990, and the appellant duly accepted the offer. But since there was a vast difference in the figures arrived at by the first Surveyor and the second Surveyor as regards the market value of the car, the appellant requested the respondent/complainant vide letter dated 10.5.1991 to submit to the appellant insurers the purchase invoice of the car, which the respondent was said to have purchased from the State Trading Corporation, so that with the date of purchase and value of purchase the two divergent figures arrived at by the two Surveyors could be reconciled, and this would facilitate early Settlement of the claim. But the respondent/complainant instead of complying with this filed the complaint before the State Commission on 26.9.1991.

The State Commission gave its consideration to the following points. (1) Whether there was any deficiency of service or negligence on the part of the opposite party? (2) Whether the claim is not maintainable? (3) To what amount of compensation, if any, is the complainant entitled?

After an exhaustive examination of the above mentioned points, the State Commission came to the conclusion that there was gross negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party in settling the claim for insurance for the sum of Rs. 5,50,000/. The accident had occurred on 3.10.1989 and till 10.5.1991 the claim was not settled even after the complainant respondent had agreed to accept Rs. 3.00 lakhs on full loss basis on 17.11.1990. On 10.5.1991 the Insurance Co. asked for more information to be provided, like the purchase invoice and were waiting for is then that the complainant filed a complaint with the State Commission.

AT the hearing of the State Commission the Insurance Co. was prepared to take up for consideration the claim and no argument was advanced on the ground of violation of the condition of the policy. As to the settlement of the claim the Counsel for the Insurance Co. agreed to work out loss on a total loss basis provided the damaged vehicle and its parts were still intact. It was found to be so, after the second Surveyor was sent to Bangalore for further inspection. Thus it was agreed on both sides that the loss has to be assessed on total loss basis. Subsequently the State Commission gave the above mentioned order, which the Insurance Co, has now challenged.

ON perusing the records and the State Commission order, and hearing the Counsel on both side''s we have come to the conclusion that the order of the State Commission does not call for any Interference as it is not vitiated by any error of fact or law, We accordingly confirm the said order. The appeal is dismissed with costs which we assess at Rs, 1,000/- to be given to the respondent by the Appellant. Appeal dismissed.