UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. vs BHARAT KUMAR C.PATEL

BY its order of 22nd November, 1991, in Complaint Case No. 201/91, the State Commission of Gujarat granted the following reliefs to the Respondent Complainants whose truck met with an accident on the 6th March, 1991 and is insured with the Appellant, Insurance Company. (i) The insurer to pay the insured amount less scrap value of the damaged vehicle with interest at 15 per cent from the date of the survey report till the full payment is made. Or in the alternative the appellant, Insurance Company should get the truck repaired through their own repairers and restored to the same condition as it was on the date of the accident. (ii) The insurer to pay interest at 15 per cent from the date of the survey report till actual payment is made on the amount of the policy. (iii) To pay Rs. 1,000/- as costs to the Complainant.

THE relevant facts in brief are noted below : The Appellant Insurance Company appointed a Surveyor to make a spot survey of the accidented vehicle on the 11th March, 1991. The Respondent Complainant was asked to take the vehicle to Ahmedabad which was done with the help of another truck. The complainant insured asked for settlement of his insurance claim on the basis of total loss whereas the Appellant insurer offered to settle the claim on repair basis. The Appellant insurer also alleged that the second surveyor appointed by him found that the Respondent insured had already dismantled the vehicle prior to inspection and approval of the appellant insurer.

THIS allegation of the appellant insurer has been explained in the order of the State Commission. From the spot surveyor''s report it appeared that every major part of the truck had been affected by accident and some parts had been actually separated. For towing the vehicle to Ahmedabad, certain parts had to be taken out.

REGARDING the question whether the damaged vehicle should be treated as total loss or as capable of being repaired, and therefore, the claim should be settled on repair basis, it is evident from the order of the State Commission that there was difference among automobile experts regarding the extent of damage suffered by the vehicle and whether it would be more economical to dispose of the damaged vehicle and to go for a new vehicle than to take risk with a repaired vehicle which had been extensively damaged. Obviously taking into account this difference of opinion between the Appellant Insurance Company and the Respondent insured regarding the feasibility of repairs, the State Commission gave the option to the Appellant Insurance Company either to pay the insured amount less scrap value with interest from the date of the survey report or to arrange to get the truck repaired through their own repairers restoring it to the same condition as it was on the date of the accident. The State Commission also found that there had been delay on the part of the Insurance Company in settling the claim of the Respondent Complainant and this amounted to deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act.

AFTER hearing the parties and on going through their written submissions, we have no doubt that the order of the State Commission is just and fair and has to be upheld. However, the order gives two alternatives in the reliefs granted to the Respondent Complainant and we put it to the counsel for the Insurance Company to tell us as to which of the two alternatives was acceptable to the appellant, Insurance Company.

THE hearing on 16th February, 1993 was specifically for this limited purpose as there was no record as to which of the two alternative forms of reliefs would be adopted by the Appellant Insurance Company. On the date of hearing the counsel for the Appellant Insurance Company submitted that his client would leave it to the National Commission to decide which of the two alternative reliefs should be granted to the Respondent insured as the Appellant Insurance Company continued to maintain that the order of the State Commission was not fair and just and should be set aside.

IN the light of the submissions made by the counsel for the Appellant Insurance Company we direct that the accidented vehicle should be treated as total loss and the Appellant Insurance Company should pay the insured amount less the scrap value. The other reliefs would be as per the order of the State Commission. There is no order as to costs.