Surat: A car owner has secured an insurance claim of Rs 1.25 lakh even though he failed to conclusively establish the circumstances of the accident that damaged his four-wheeler.The Navsari Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (CDRC), while ruling in favour of the complainant, observed that although the accident itself remained unproven, the damage to the vehicle was undisputed.“Based on the circumstances and suspicious aspects of the case, the complainant has failed to prove the accident. However, the fact remains that the car was damaged, making him eligible for compensation for the loss,” the commission observed.According to the case details, Navsari resident Chirag Desai, 43, had purchased a comprehensive insurance policy from ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co Ltd for his car on Oct 18, 2022. The policy carried an insured declared value (IDV) of Rs 3.10 lakh and covered own-damage as well as third-party risks. Desai paid a premium of Rs 6,853 for the one-year policy.Desai claimed that his car met with an accident on June 20, 2023, during the policy period. He filed an insurance claim, stating that the vehicle had suffered a total loss and seeking compensation under the policy. The insurer appointed a surveyor to assess the damage.However, on July 27, 2023, the insurance company rejected the claim, citing that the “cause of loss was not justified” and alleging concealment of material facts. It also found it unusual that no FIR or police complaint had been filed despite the claim of total loss.Desai approached the consumer commission on Oct 4, 2024, seeking Rs 3.10 lakh towards total loss, besides Rs 1 lakh for harassment and litigation expenses.During the proceedings, it emerged that the insurance company had also appointed an independent investigator to verify the claim. The investigator’s report raised several doubts about the claimed accident. It noted that the damage to the vehicle’s dashboard was inconsistent with a collision involving a truck. The report also pointed out contradictions regarding the accident site, the driver’s injuries and other circumstances surrounding the incident.The investigator further observed that despite the extensive damage claimed, the driver suffered only minor injuries and did not seek medical treatment. No eyewitnesses to the accident could be traced. The report also noted that the vehicle was sent for repairs four days after the alleged accident.After examining the evidence, the commission noted that the complainant had failed to provide key details about the alleged collision, including the truck’s registration number and the identity of its driver.The commission observed that the delay in sending the vehicle for repairs, absence of eyewitnesses and lack of medical treatment for the driver added to the doubts surrounding the accident.However, the commission also noted that the vehicle had undeniably suffered damage and that the insurer’s own surveyor had assessed the loss at Rs 1.25 lakh. It further recorded that the insurance company’s counsel had expressed willingness to pay the amount assessed by the surveyor.In its order, the commission held that the insurer was deficient in service in rejecting the claim outright despite acknowledging the assessed damage.Along with damages, the commission ordered an additional Rs 15,000 as compensation for physical and mental harassment.
