(Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M. Trivedi, JJ.)
Jyotika _________________________________________ Appellant;
V.
Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited and Others ______________________________________________ Respondent(s).
Civil Appeal No. of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 21312-21313/2019), decided on March 16, 2022
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. Leave granted.
2. In the present case, a new car was purchased on 30.03.2012 for Rs. 6,80,688/- and was insured for the said amount under the cashless policy of respondent No. 1. It is an accepted and admitted position that the car met with an accident on 27.08.2012, within six months from the date of purchase of the car. As per the appellant, it was a case of complete loss and the car dealer/the work shop had estimated the cost of repairs at Rs. 6,50,822/-.
3. The surveyor, however, had estimated the repair cost at Rs. 2,49,723/-. Due to this dispute, the workshop did not carry out the repairs under the cashless policy. On the contrary, they raised a claim for demurrage and parking charges.
4. The District Consumer Forum, by a detailed order, partly allowed the claim petition and directed the respondent-Insurance Company to pay Rs. 6,48,031/-, that is, the value of the car along with interest @ 7% per annum w.e.f. 22.08.2013.
5. The State Commission, however, partly reversed the directions restricting the amount payable in terms of the report of the surveyor, that is Rs. 2,49,723/- along with interest @ 9% per annum. Compensation of Rs. 10,000/- was awarded. The workshop was directed to not levy parking charges or valet charges.
6. Aggrieved, the appellant had preferred a revision petition before the National Forum which was dismissed on ground that it was barred by a delay of 108 days and sufficient explanation for the delay had not been given. Interestingly, the order in 13 paragraphs examines facts, but does not discuss the real issue with reference to the surveyor report and items mentioned therein, which were required to be replaced or repaired to make the car road worthy.
7. It is also a matter of fact that the car could never be repaired and given back to the appellant in a drivable condition.
8. We have also examined the list enclosed at page 77 (Annexure P-9), which indicates the items required to be replaced and the estimated cost as given by the authorized workshop as well as the cost indicated in the surveyor’s report. Most of the items to be replaced have fixed price. Genuine parts had to be used.
9. On the last date of hearing, learned counsel for the appellant had stated that the appellant would like to give quietus to this old matter. If the respondent/Insurance Company makes payment of Rs. 5 lakhs the matter can be closed. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company states that the Insurance Company is ready to make payment of Rs. 3.5 lakhs.
10. In view of the factual position, specifically the list of the items which were required to be replaced or repaired, we feel that the suggestion made by the appellant should be accepted. Admittedly, even amount of Rs. 2,49,723/- has not been paid. The appellant has not been able to use the car, which today is outdated and possibly junk.
11. We, accordingly, direct the respondent – Insurance Company to make payment of Rs. 5 lakhs to the appellant within a period of four weeks. In case they do not pay Rs. 5 lakhs within the stipulated period, they shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the order passed by the Consumer Forum till the payment is made.
12. The civil appeals are allowed in the aforesaid terms.
13. There shall be no order as to costs.
14. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 21312-21313/2019
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 26-03-2019 in RP No. 493 and 494/2017 passed by the National Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi)
Jyotika.….Petitioner(s)
v.
Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited & Ors.….Respondent(s)
(IA No. 126286/2019 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT)
Date : 16-03-2022 These matters were called on for hearing today.
(Before Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M. Trivedi, JJ.)
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
ORDER
15. Leave granted.
16. The appeals are allowed in terms of the signed order.
17. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
———
