BHARTI AXA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. HAVING ONE OF ITS OFFICES AT MERCANTILE HOUSE, 7TH FLOOR,15, KASTURBA GANDHI MARG, CONNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI Vs. ABHAY KUMAR S/O LATE MADHUKARNARAYAN BARTALWAR, R/O QUARTER NO. 6, A, STREET 24, SECTOR 7, BHILAI NAGAR, DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant/respondent purchased a Ford Figo Car bearing Regn. No.CG-07-MB 3645 and got the same insured with the petitioner company for 2.2.2012 to 1.2.2013. The vehicle was got financed from Bank of India. On 21.10.2012 after about 8 months of the purchase, the vehicle met with an accident and was brought to M/s Maruti Auto Centre at Bhilai for repairs. On intimation being given to the insurer, a surveyor was appointed to assess the loss. The surveyor sent a letter dated 10.4.2013 to the complainant, referring to his earlier letter dated 28.2.2013 and requesting him to dismantle the vehicle for the purpose of further inspection so that internal damages could be verified. The complainant/respondent replied to the aforesaid letter on 22.4.2013, denying therein the receipt of the earlier letter dated 28.2.2013. It was stated in the reply that the earlier letter dated 28.2.2013 was also received by him along with the letter dated 10.4.2013.

(2.) As regards the request made by the surveyor for dismantling the vehicle, it was stated by the complainant that since the vehicle had got fully damaged and was not in a repairable condition, no useful purpose would be served from its dismantling. It was also pointed out in the said reply that the cost of the repair had been assessed by M/s Maruti Auto Centre at Rs.6,60,509/- which was more than the insured value of the vehicle.

(3.) The surveyor then made his own assessment without dismantling of the vehicle and estimated the cost of repairs at Rs.156181.60. There is no evidence of the petitioner company having offered even that amount to the complainant but it is an admitted position that the said amount was not acceptable to the complainant. Being aggrieved, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a complaint. The complaint was resisted by the insurer primarily on the same ground on which the claim had been closed on account of non-cooperation from the complainant on account of his having not got the vehicle dismantled.