Vehicle Insurance Policy - Gbic.co.in

Aggrieved by the decision of the Company, the Insured, approached the Ombudsmanby letter dated 14.12.2004 giving facts of the case and seeking intervention in thematter of settlement of his claim.The liability of the company for the loss is based on the assessment by the SurveyorM/s. R. R. Thampi, Surveyor. It is a job of the specialists and the Surveyors are dulyapproved by Insurance Regulatory & Development Authority (IRDA) and thenempanelled by the Company to use their services as independent professionals In viewof this, their report is technically viable and, therefore, should be acceptable to thisForum if it is found that they have following the basic requirement in arriving at asettlement.It will be appreciated that this Forum would have no recourse but to depend on thedocuments already produced and with the passage of time which has intervened inbetween there cannot be any question of looking into the case afresh It is necessary topoint out that the Repairers are aware of the systems followed in settling MotorInsurance cases viz. the labour charges and replacement of parts consistent with thedamage are duly agreed between them as payable on Company’s account or Insured’saccount depending on age of the vehicle and depreciation to be applied. There is noreason to believe that it was not done, so as the company appointed a competentlicensed Surveyor. Hence broadly the settlement terms would be acceptable asexplained in the body of this Forum cannot raise a point against the settled marketpractice and convention which avoids spurious parts and unhealthy practices. Aboveall, there was a meeting of the Insured with the Company and the Surveyor in which allissues must have been discussed.In the background of this analysis, the charges payable by the Company as per theSurvey Report which was duly explained by them in a letter to the Insured giving theCompany’s liability would be in order. However, considering the fact that somedamages and replacement of corrosponding parts could be a borderline liability forwhich the Insured should get the benefit of the doubt,this Forum recommends an ad -hoc increase of Rs. 5,000/- to the admissible amount arrived at by the Company toresolve the dispute.Mumbai Ombudsman CentreCase No. GI - 67 of 2004 - 2005Smt. Hutoxi Keki MobedjinaVsThe New India Assurance Co. Ltd.Award Dated 9.9.2005Smt. Hutoxi Keki Mobedjina, Complainant had taken a Policy from The New IndiaAssurance Company Ltd., Mumbai, to cover her car Ford Escort Diesel Model 1999, forInsured’s Declared Value (IDV) of Rs. 2,00,000/- under Private Car Package. Smt.Hutoxi Keki Mobedji intimated to the company that her car met with an accident on theMumbai Pune Express Way on 18th February, 2004. The Surveyors recommededsettlement of claim on Total Loss basis for Rs. 1,20,000/-.The matter was then referred by New India to their Mumbai R. O. I for opinion andthereafter the Company vide letter dated 15th January, 2005 informed Smt. Mobedjinathat the Company had addressed a letter dated 13.12.2004 informing her of theirdecision to settle the claim on net of salvage basis for Rs. 54,500/- after taking intoaccount salvage value of Rs. 45,000/- and excess of Rs. 500/- and accordingly thedisbursement voucher was sent to her. The Company requested the insured to returnthe discharge voucher signed in full and final settlement of the claim and collect the