Order Name: Royal Sundaram General Insurance Vs. Ishwar Singh Mehra
Case No.: No. 1150/2017
A recent judgment by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), presided over by AVM J. Rajendra, has clarified a critical aspect concerning insurance claims. The ruling establishes that in situations where there is a difference between the insured amount as per an authorized dealer and a surveyor, the dealer’s claim will have the upper hand. The reason being, the dealer’s evaluation is likely based on a more comprehensive inspection, thus offering a more precise estimate of the damages and repair costs.
Now let’s delve into the specifics of the case. The person who raised the complaint owned a Tavera car that was insured by Royal Sundaram General Insurance for a certain duration. Unfortunately, the vehicle got involved in an accident. The incident was promptly reported to the police and the insurance company. A surveyor was brought in to assess the loss, and they valued it at Rs. 1,54,559. However, the car owner claimed the Insured Declared Value (IDV) of the vehicle, stating a total loss amounting to Rs. 4,98,717. Discontent with the result, the car owner lodged a complaint with the District Forum. The forum ruled in favor of the complainant. The insurance company then took the matter to the State Commission, but their appeal got dismissed. Undeterred, the insurer filed a revision petition against the State Commission’s verdict at the National Commission.
The insurance company’s contention was straightforward. They acknowledged that the vehicle was insured by them. The surveyor had evaluated the loss at Rs. 1,54,559, considering deductions for depreciation and policy excess. The insurer argued that the complainant had not presented the vehicle for re-inspection or provided original bills and receipts for the claim settlement. Thus, they urged for the complaint to be dismissed.
The National Commission’s observation revolved around the primary issue of inconsistency in assessing the vehicle’s damage and repair costs post the accident. As per the authorized car dealer, Malwa Auto Sales, the car was severely damaged with repair costs estimated around Rs. 9 lakh. The dealer’s report also indicated the IDV of the car to be Rs. 4,98,717. In stark contrast, the surveyor’s report placed the loss at Rs. 1,54,559 after deductions. The commission pointed out that this discrepancy highlighted a significant problem in compensation. The dealer’s assessment seemed more aligned with the actual damages and repair costs, suggesting a total loss and that the repair cost exceeded the IDV. Hence, the commission deemed compensation equal to the IDV as appropriate.
The commission also made reference to previous cases like ‘New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pradeep Kumar’ and ‘Sri Venkateshwara Syndicate Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr’. These cases emphasized the importance of the surveyor’s assessment in claim settlements, but also clarified that these assessments are not the final word and can be contested with stronger evidence.
To sum up, the commission dismissed the revision petition filed by the insurer, upholding the State Commission’s order. The key takeaway from this ruling is that an authorized dealer’s assessment has more weightage in insurance claim disputes, as it often reflects a more accurate estimate of damages and repair costs. This judgment provides a valuable precedent for future cases involving similar disputes.
