Surat: The Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) has refused to interfere with an order of the Valsad Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (CDRC), which had directed an insurance company to pay Rs 29.90 lakh to a car owner after his vehicle was declared a total loss in an accident.The insurer had rejected the claim alleging that the driver mentioned in the complaint was “planted”, arguing that it was unlikely the driver could escape without injuries in such a severe crash.However, the complainant’s advocate argued that the driver remained unharmed because the high-end car’s airbags deployed during the accident.According to case details, the Vapi-based complainant purchased a Jeep Meridian on October 17, 2022, and paid a premium of Rs 94,584 for an insured declared value (IDV) of Rs 29.90 lakh. During the policy period, on February 5, 2023, the complainant, along with three relatives and a friend, was travelling to Nashik to attend a wedding.Near Nashik, their car was hit by another vehicle. At the time of the accident, the complainant’s friend was driving the car. He escaped without injuries due to the airbags deployed in the vehicle.Following the accident, the service centre estimated the repair cost at Rs 27.12 lakh. As the amount was close to the IDV of Rs 29.9 lakh, the vehicle was treated as a “total loss” as per insurance rules.After the insurance company rejected the claim citing alleged misrepresentation of facts, the complainant approached the Valsad CDRC in November 2023. On May 13, 2024, the commission ordered the insurer to pay the total loss amount.During the hearing, the insurer’s counsel argued that photographs of the damaged vehicle suggested that the driver could not have escaped without injuries and therefore the person named as the driver might have been planted. The counsel also contended that no proof was produced to show that the vehicle had travelled from Vapi to Nashik and that no FIR related to the accident was submitted.However, the complainant’s counsel, advocate Apoorva Desai, argued that modern vehicles are equipped with advanced airbag systems that can prevent serious injuries in accidents. The driver had also submitted an affidavit confirming that he was driving the car at the time of the accident, which the insurer did not challenge.Based on the arguments, the Valsad CDRC directed the insurance company to pay the IDV of Rs 29.90 lakh with 8% interest, observing that the insurer failed to prove that someone else was driving the vehicle.The company later appealed before the Gujarat SCDRC, which upheld the Valsad CDRC order and declined to interfere.The SCDRC observed, “The insurance firm relied on an investigator’s report claiming that the complainant’s friend was not driving the car. However, the report was not submitted as an affidavit. Consequently, the complainant did not get an opportunity to cross-examine the investigator. Therefore, the report cannot be treated as valid evidence in this complaint. No other proof was produced to establish that the driver mentioned in the complaint was not driving the vehicle. Since the Valsad CDRC has carefully considered all aspects in its order, this commission finds no reason to interfere.”
