NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. vs S.K.PRUTHI

THIS is an appeal against the order dated 8th July, 1993 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi in Complainant Case No. 54/93. The said complaint case was filed by the present Respondent, Shri S.K.Pruthi against the present Appellant, New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

ACCORDING to the facts alleged by the Complainant he is onwer of Maruti Car bearing registration No. DIC 3915. It was insured with the Appellant-Insurance Co. for a sum of Rs. 80,000/- for the period 24th December, 1991 to 23rd December, 1992. The car met with an accident on 10th December, 1992 near Kalyan Vihar, Delhi. The matter was reported to the Police Station Kingsway Camp, Delhi on 11th December, 1992. The complainant also informed the Insurance Company about the accident and requested for deputing a Surveyor for inspecting the car. The Insurance Company appointed one Mr. Charanjit Sharma as Surveyor. The Complainant obtained an estimate of the repairs/replacement of parts from M/s. Frontier Automobiles (hereinafter referred to as repairer). The repairer had demanded Rs. 63,000/- for replacement of the parts plus Sales Tax and Rs. 9,200/- as labour charges. The said estimate was handed over by the Complainant to the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company suggested to the Complainant that he should get the estimate of the repairs/replacement of the parts from an authorised Maruti Dealer in order to enable the Insurance Company to exercise their option in terms of the policy. Consequently the Complainant obtained the estimate of repairs/ replacement of damaged parts from M/s. Agnail Traders Ltd. who gave the estimate of Rs. 97,796.63 for replacement of the parts and Rs. 11,740/- as labour charges. The Complainant asked the Insurance Company vide his letter dated 16th December, 1992 to indicate as to which of the options it would like to exercise with reference to condition No. 3 of the policy which is as follows:" "The Company may at its own option repair, reinstate or replace the Motor Car 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 lost/less depreciation plus the reasonable cost of fitting and shall in no case exceed the insured''s estimate of the value of the Motor car (including accessories thereon) as specified in the schedule or the value of the Motor Car (including accessories thereon) at the time of the loss or damage whichever is the less."

The Complainant received a letter dated 18th December, 1992 from the Insurance Company on 26th December, 1992 whereby it was indicated that the claim would be settled on repair basis only. After receipt of that letter, the Complainant vide his letter dated 28th December, 1992 asked the Insurance Company to get the car repaired as under the terms of the policy it was not his responsibility to get the same repaired. The Complainant received another letter dated 4th January, 1993 from the Insurance Company stating that it would depute a Surveyor to assess the loss as soon as the case was made available at the nominated workshop. It was further stated that the accidental car had to be made available with the repairer who had to settle the same with them. The Complainant vide his letter dated 9th January, 1993 informed the Insurance Company that it should get the car repaired at the earliest. In spite of aforesaid correspondence the car was not got repaired by the Insurance Company till the filing of the complaint.

IT was further the case of the Complainant that the repairer started charging garage charges at the rate of Rs. 50.00 per day on account of delay and an amount of Rs. 2,000/- had become due and payable to them on that account. The Complainant again sent the original estimate from the repairer to the Insurance Company requesting it to finally get the car repaired at the earliest in terms of the policy. The Insurance Company vide letter dated 13th January, 1993 asked the Complainant to contact the Surveyor to finalise his claim. According to the Complainant, the Insurance Company failed to discharge its part of obligation under the contract of insurance and delayed the repair of the care without any reason.

IT was further the case of the Complainant that he is an Advocate and was experiencing great inconvenience in the absence of the car to attend his professional work. He had been incurring Rs. 150/- per day on the conveyance charges for travelling from his residence at Paschim Vihar to Tis Hazari and back and also to visit the High Court at Delhi almost every day. He, therefore, claimed the following amount from the Insurance Company. The complaint was contested by the Insurance Company. It was pleaded that the estimates of the repair brought by the Complainant was discussed with the Regional Manager of the Company. It was not the Insurance Company but the Complainant who wanted to get fresh estimate from an authorised Maruti Dealer. It was however, admitted by it that it was agreed that the claim would be settled on the repair basis. According to the Insurance Company the Complainant was responsible for the delay in repair of the car. The Insurance Company had deputed the Surveyor to prepare the estimate but when he visited the workshop of the repairer the car was not available there. It was further pleaded that once the Insurance Company agreed to finalise the claim on repair basis, it was the responsibility of the Complainant to choose the workshop where he wished to get the same repaired.

DURING the pendency of the case before the State Commission, the Insurance Company agreed to pay Rs. 23,135/- as repair charges. A cheque for that amount was handed over to the Complainant. The Complainant submitted three bills, two bills were for the parts replaced and the total of those bills came to Rs. 39,423.18. The Complainant admitted that the Insurance Company was entitled to deduct an amount of Rs. 16,526.60 on account of depreciation charges. After deducting the said amount the balance amount payable by the Insurance Company to the Complainant as the costs of the parts replaced came to Rs. 22,896.58. The third bill was for Rs. 2,685/- which was the cost of the glass and no depreciation was admittedly admissible. Thus the total amount of the three bills payable by the Insurance Company came to Rs. 25,581.58. It was agreed between the parties that the labour charges would be Rs. 5,000/- and thus the total amount payable by the Insurance Company came to Rs. 30,581.58. As the Insurance Company had already given a cheque for Rs. 28,155/- the State Commission held that Rs. 2,446.58 were due to the Complainant on account of repairs/replacement of parts. The garage charges at the rate of Rs. 50/- per day from 11th December, 1992 to 16th February, 1993 the date of sanction of the claim on repair basis by the Insurance Company and from March 11,1993 the date when the car was ready for delivery till May 6,1993 when the delivery was taken were also allowed. The Complainant was also allowed Rs. 50/- per day as his expenses on conveyance. Thus the Insurance Company was held liable to pay Rs. 13,596.58 and the Insurance Company was directed to pay that amount within a period of three months to the Complainant. It was further ordered that in case that amount was not paid within that period the said amount was to carry interest at the rate of 15% per annum. Feeling aggrieved of that order the Insurance Company has filed this appeal.

THE State Commission has given a definite finding based on the correspondence that passed between the parties and the other facts of the case that there has been delay on the part of the Insurance Company in sanctioning the cost of repair of the car. The learned Counsel for the Appellant argued that for the delay the Respondent-Complainant is responsible because he did not himself get the car repaired and on the other hand asked the Insurance Company to get the car repaired. According to the learned Counsel for the Appellant it is long practice that the owner of the accidented vehicle gets it repaired from his chosen repairer and in case the Insurance Company gets repair effected usually the insured is not satisfied with the repairs. The question to be seen is that whose duty is it to get the car repaired. The Supreme Court in N.R. Srinivasa Iyer v. New India Assurance Company Ltd., 1983 AIR 899, remarked in para 16: "The insurer may at its option either repair, reinstate or replace the motor car once the car is damaged in accident. The obligation to repair to the damaged car arose under the Contract of Insurance. The insurer had absolute discretion either to repair, reinstate or replace the motor car. When the insurer has the option to replace the motor car it can take over the damaged car and the insured is bound to submit to the same. If the insurer on the other hand exercises the option to repair the car it is entitled not merely to choose the repairer but also to determine the charges for repairs to be negotiated and settled between the insurer and the repairer and the insured has hardly anything to do with it."

Hence, it was the obligation of the Insurance Company to get the car repaired when it exercised the option to repair the car. In the present case the Complainant had specifically written to the Insurance Company to get the car repaired. Therefore, the delay in sanctioning the cost of repairs in the present case is due to the fault of the Insurance Company.

IT was next argued by the learned Counsel for the Appellant that when a car is got repaired the repairer do not charge garage charges. However, there is no evidence in support of that contention and therefore, it is rejected.

IN the light of observations above, we do not find any force in the present appeal and dismiss the same but make no order as to costs.