Vehicle Insurance Policy - Gbic.co.in

gave them option of repair, reinstate or replace the vehicle insured or may pay in cashthe amount of loss or damage. This was the first Claim that was being settled on thereplacement basis through this option was operative since ling. The Respondent triedto explain that their Head Office had suggested to try this option. At the same time itwas made clear that it was not a Corporate directive but a mere suggestion and thattoo was to be applied to Private Motor Car Policy. Subject Vehicle being a CommercialVehicle the replacement option should not desirably be chosen. As there had been nodispute regarding total loss of the Insured Vehicle, the settlement on IDV basis for Rs.7,18,500/- (After deduction of Excess of Rs. 1500) became admissible and Respondentwas directed to pay the same.Ahmedabad Ombudsman CentreCase No. 11.004.0089Mr. Govindbhai J. VadherVsUnited India Insurance Co. Ltd.Award Dated 08.4.2005Mr. Govindbhai J. Vadher had his Truck No. GJ - 3V - 9767 insured under MotorPackage Policy bearing No. 16710 / 02. His Claim for Accident loss to the InsuredVehicle was offered to be settled by the Respondent for an amount not acceptable tohim. In this case the Truck overturned on its right side after going below the roadsidestep area and then dashed with the wall of the bridge causing severe damages.Spot Survey and Final Survey were done. The Final Survey Report of Mr. Ajay Sharmawas found to be fairly detailed and the Surveyor assessed the loss after scrutiny ofBills which worked out to Rs. 2,13,581/-. Salvage was valued at Rs. 8,501/- and SpotSurvey fee of Rs. 920/- was found payable to the Claimant Thus, the net amountpayable on repair basis after deduction of excess worked out as under.Amount fo gross loss assessed : Rs. 2,13,581/-Less Salvage Rs. 8,501/-Add Reimbursement of Spot Survey Rs. 920/-Net Payable Claim Rs. 2,06,000/-Re-inspection Report also confirmed the repairs as permitted. One other Surveyor wasasked to inspect the salvage of Engine Spares. It was judgement over first surveryreport of Mr. Ajay Sharma. This Report inter alia pointed out that Rs. 73,774/- out offinal assessment of loss made by Mr. Ajay Sharma was not payable. This prompted theRespondent to offer the Claim amount of Rs. 1,34,913/-. The dispute arose due to thesecond inspection report by Mr. Vora. The justification of calling this report can be acalled in question and its outcome should be viewed in light of the following judicialprecedent. In the case of National Insurance Co. Vs. New Patiala Trading Company(2004 CCJ 537) the Hon’ble State Commission did not find justification on the part ofthe Insurer in appointing another Surveyor. The Hon’ble National Commission upheldthe position and pointed out inter alia that it is a statute which prescribes theappointment of Licenced Surveyor and Loss Assessor and prima facie thereforecredence will have to be given to the report of such Approved Surveyors and LossAsssessor. Respondent to pay Rs. 20,600/- to the Complainant as assessed by Mr.Ajay Sharma.