CHAITANYA PRASAD Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 24.08.2012, passed by the Uttarakhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short 'the State Commission') in FA No. 175/2009, "Chaitanya Prasad & Anr. versus National Insurance Co. Ltd.", vide which the appeal filed by the petitioner/complainant against the order dated 25.08.2009, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dehradun in consumer complaint no. 94/2008, was dismissed and the order passed by the District Forum, allowing the said complaint, was upheld.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that both the petitioners/complainants got their Tata 709 Bus, bearing registration number UA 07 C/8018 insured with the respondent / OP, National Insurance Co. Ltd. (for short the 'insurance company') for the period from 29.04.2007 to 28.04.2008, vide policy No. 462201/31/07/6300000359 and the IDV of the said vehicle was estimated to be Rs.5.40 lakh. On 12.08.2007, when the said vehicle was going from Pipalkoti from Badrinath, it met with an accident, due to which it suffered extensive damage. An information regarding the accident was conveyed to the OP insurance company on 13.08.2007 and information was also given to the Police Station Joshi Math by the driver of the vehicle Surya Prakash. A spot survey of the vehicle was got carried out by the insurance company through its surveyor R.R. Sharma. The salvage of the vehicle could not be retrieved by the complainant due to constant landslides etc. The insurance company informed the complainants on 14.09.2007 to retrieve the salvage and store it in safe custody and present the estimates of repairs so that final survey could be conducted. The complainants retrieved the salvage on 28.11.2007 and paid Rs.30,000/- for bringing the same to Rishikesh. It has been stated in the complaint that the complainants had been paying an amount of Rs.200/- per day for safeguarding and storing the salvage of the said vehicle. The final survey was carried out by the OP insurance company through surveyor V.P. Singhal on 5.12.2007 and as per their letter dated 12.12.2007, the repair estimate of Rs.7,74,331/- was prepared by Commercial Motors, Rishikesh and another estimate of Rs.1,98,000/- was prepared by Abdul Guffar, Rishikesh, the body-makers. In this way, a total of Rs.9,72,331/- was stated to be required to repair the said vehicle. However, the Insurance Company offered to the complainants on 21.2.2008, a sum of Rs.44,000/- as settlement amount, but the complainant demanded a sum of Rs.5,40,000/- being the IDV of the vehicle. The complainant stated that the surveyor V.P. Singhal & Company had termed the condition of the vehicle as 'major damage'. The case of the complainants is that it is a case of total damage and Rs.5,40,000/- being the IDV of the vehicle, should be paid to them along with interest @15% p.a. from the date of the accident and the cost incurred for retrieving the salvage and its storage and maintenance should also be paid, along with Rs.20,000/- for mental harassment and Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation. The District Forum vide their order dated 25.08.2009 awarded a sum of Rs.3,70,000/- to the complainant along with interest @7% p.a. from the date of the presentation of the complaint. The District Forum based their conclusion on the basis of surveyor report in which the estimate of compensation on repair basis has been stated to be Rs.3,70,000/-. An appeal was filed against this order of the District Forum before the State Commission by the complainants, but it was dismissed vide impugned order. It is against this order that the present revision petition has been made before us.

(3.) At the time of hearing before us, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention towards the terms and conditions stated in the "Private Vehicles Package Policy" issued by the Insurance company, in which it has been stated that "IDV will be treated as market value throughout policy without any further depreciation for the purpose of total loss/constructive total loss claim." Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the salvage of the vehicle had been collected by the respondent company on 24.10.2009. He pleaded that the orders passed by the State Commission vide which order of the District Forum had been upheld, should be set aside and the complaint should be allowed, and the relief as demanded by the complainant should be provided.