RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD vs P S Pramod

THE complainant/respondent who is a doctor by profession, purchased a Honda City Car bearing registration no. KL 16G 4552 and got the same insured with the petitioner Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. for the period from 06.04.2011 to 05.04.2012 for a sum of Rs. 8,81,790/ -. The vehicle met with a major accident on 30.11.2011, during subsistence of the policy and was taken to Vision Motors Pvt. Ltd., Opposite Party No. 3 in the complaint, for repairs. The said opposite party prepared an estimate of Rs. 7,07,917/ - and forwarded the same to the Insurance Company. However, no instructions were given by the Insurance Company to Vision Motors Pvt. Ltd. to start repair of the vehicle. As a result, the complainant approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Idukki, seeking the following reliefs: - 1. The opposite parties may be directed either to give the insurance amount of Rs. 8,81,790/ - or to replace the vehicle with a new one.

Rs. 60,000/ - may be allowed as actual loss sustained by using rent a car.

Rs. 50,000/ - may be allowed as compensation for deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.

Rs. 5,000/ - may be allowed as costs of this petition."

THE complaint was resisted by the petitioner, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. While admitting that the aforesaid vehicle was insured with it for a sum of Rs. 8,81,790/ -, it was stated in the reply that the surveyor appointed by the Insurance Company had estimated the total cost of repair including the labour charges at Rs. 4,11,942.26 and therefore the complainant was entitled only to that much amount. It was further stated in the reply that though intimation in this regard was given to the complainant as well as Vision Motors Pvt. Ltd., the complainant did not give instructions for repair of the vehicle.

ON the application of the applicant, the District Forum appointed another surveyor namely Mr. K. S. Ramakrishna Ayyar, to assess the cost of repair to the aforesaid vehicle. In the opinion of the surveyor appointed by the District Forum, the cost of repair would be Rs. 6,86,207.36/ -. He, therefore, recommended settlement of the claim on a total -loss basis. It was noted by the District Forum that the report of the surveyor appointed by it and the assessment done by him had not been objected by the learned counsel for the opposite parties at the time it was marked, though, objections had been filed by them claiming that the report was exaggerated. The District Forum directed the Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs. 8,81,790/ - to the complainant with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint alongwith Rs. 2,000/ - towards the cost of the litigation.

BEING aggrieved from the order of the District Forum, the Insurance Company approached the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 22.02.2014, the appeal was dismissed without cost. Being still dissatisfied, the Insurance Company is before us by way of this Revision Petition.

IT is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Insurance Company is not required to pay more than the cost of repair assessed by its surveyor appointed by it and therefore, the liability of the Insurance Company cannot exceed Rs. 4,11,942.26/ -. This is also the submission of the learned counsel that since the cost of repair assessed by the surveyor was less than 75% of the IDV, the claim of the respondent/complainant could not have been treated as a case of total loss and could not have been settled on that basis. We have perused the survey report placed on page nos. 61 to 67 of the paper book. This is a computer typed report and therefore does not appear to be the original report, prepared at the place of inspection. The document filed by the petitioner does not bear signature of the complainant. It is not known whether the report prepared by the surveyor on the spot was got signed by the complainant or not. In the absence of original survey report, the inference would be that the surveyor did not get the survey report signed from the complainant. In our opinion, the surveyor should have inspected the vehicle in the presence of the complainant and should have got his report signed from the complainant, unless, he carried out inspection after notice to the complainant and the complainant chose not to remain present at the appointed time of inspection, or he refused to sign the report, despite having been present at the time of inspection. In the absence of a report, signed by the complainant, it would not be safe to rely upon this survey report filed by the petitioner, Insurance Company, when there are serious disputes between the parties as regards the extent of the damages caused to the vehicle, in the accident. It would be appropriate to note in this regard that, a number of parts shown damaged in the report of the surveyor appointed by the District Forum were not shown damaged in the report prepared by the surveyor of the Insurance Company. A perusal of the report prepared by the surveyor appointed by the District Forum would show that the inspection was carried out in the presence of the employees of Vision Motors Pvt. Ltd., opposite party no. 3 in the complaint and the surveyor had served notice on the complainant as well as all the opposite parties before carrying out the inspection. On the other hand, the report of the surveyor appointed by the Insurance Company does not refer to any notice having been given by him to the complainant, before undertaking assessment of damage to the vehicle. In these circumstances, the District Forum in our view was justified in relying upon the report of the surveyor appointed by the said forum instead of relying upon the report of the surveyor appointed by the Insurance Company. To this extent, we find no fault with the view taken by the District Forum and the State Commission.

HOWEVER , we find that the surveyor appointed by the District Forum, in addition to cost of repair which he assessed at Rs. 5,61,207.36/ - after deducting the salvage value, also added a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/ -, towards possible damage to the engine and other mechanical parts. The aforesaid assessment was made without examining the engine and other mechanical parts of the vehicle. It can hardly be disputed that there was a strong chance of damage to the engine as well as to some mechanical parts of the vehicle, as a result of the accident, but, the figure of Rs. 1,25,000/ - added on this account was only speculative. The surveyor appointed by the District Forum in our view, should have asked the work shop i.e. Vision Motors Pvt. Ltd. to carry out an assessment of the damage to the engine and other mechanical parts instead of giving an estimate without any basis for it. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that a sum of Rs. 50,000/ - should be paid to the complainant for repair of the damage to the engine and other mechanical parts of the vehicle.

THE cost of repair of the vehicle, therefore, would come to Rs. 6,11,207.36/ -. We, therefore, direct the petitioner, Insurance Company to pay the aforesaid amount of Rs. 6,11,207.36/ - to the complainant alongwith interest on the said amount at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till the date amount in question was deposited with the District Forum in compliance of the interim order passed by this Commission. The complainant shall be entitled to take the vehicle from the workshop of respondent no. 3 and get it repaired, utilising the aforesaid amount.

THE petitioner had deposited the entire amount with the District Forum, by way of an FDR, which the said Forum will now get encashed. After making payment to the complainant, in terms of this order, the balance amount shall be refunded by the District Forum to the petitioner. The revision petition stands disposed of.