Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/167/2018

Sachin.P.L S/o Lokanath.P.S - Complainant(s)

Versus

Authorised Signatory,Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.C.M.Veeranna

15 Mar 2019

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON:30/08/2018

DISPOSED      ON:15/03/2019

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA.

CC.NO:167/2018

 

DATED: 15^th MARCH 2019

PRESENT :-     SRI.T.N.SREENIVASAIAH :   PRESIDENT                                     B.A., LL.B.,

                        SMT. JYOTHI RADHESH JEMBAGI

BSc.,MBA., DHA.,                LADY MEMBER

 

……COMPLAINANT/S	Sachin.P.L, S/o Lokanath.P.S, Aged about 45 years, PMS Building, Neelkanteshwara Extension, Holalkere Road, Chitradurga.   (Rep by Sri.P.S. Sathyanarayana Rao, Advocate)
V/S
…..OPPOSITE PARTIES	1. Authorized Signatory, Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd., Beside JCR SBI Branch, JCR Extension Main Road, Chitradurga.   2. The Authorized Signatory, IFFCO-Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd., Head Office:Iffco Towers,4th and 5th Floor, Plot No.3, Sector-029, Gurgaon-122001, Haryana State.   3. The Authorized Signatory, Cauvery Motors Pvt Ltd., SMG Shankar Mutt Road, Shimoga.   4. The Authorized Signatory, Metro Ford, Site No:17,PB Road, Next to SAI International, Davangere-577006.   5. The Authorized Signatory, Ford India Pvt. Ltd., Regional Office, Block-1B, I Floor, RMZ Millenia Business Park, 143, Dr. MGR Road, North Veeranam Salai, Perungudi, Chennai-600 096.   (Rep by Sri.H.T. Jagannath, Advocate)

ORDER

SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH:   PRESIDENT

The above complaint has been filed b

y the complainant u/Sec.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 for the relief to direct the OP No.1 and 2 to pay a sum of Rs.2,35,354/- with nominal interest, Rs.2,00,000/- towards damages towards mental agony, loss of time and energy and to grant such other reliefs.

2.      The brief facts of the case of the above complainant are that, he has purchased Ford make FIGO Aspire 1.5 TDCI Diesel Titanium SMT Model Car bearing Registration No.KA-16 N-4454 bearing Engine No.HR41984 and Chassis No.MAJZXXMTKZHR41984 by availing loan from Axis Bank Ltd., Davanagere from OP No.3.  The Financier had issued a DD in favour of OP No.3 and complainant taken delivery of the above said vehicle.  The vehicle has been insured with OP No.1 and 2 under policy No.348103901102 on 10.08.2007 for the period from 10.08.2017 to 09.08.2018 as bumper to bumper coverage known to be as nil depreciation cover.  It is further submitted that, on 26.06.2018, while returning to his house after having dinner at Aishwarya Fort Hotel, Chitradurga, as there was raining, the water entered as usual through silencer, the complainant tried to start the car, but it did not started at all.  Finally the complainant lodged a complaint in Ford Customer Service Care Cell and, for that they have assisted and towed the vehicle to Metro Ford Service Centre, Davanagere.  After 3-4 days, the Surveyor of OP No.1 and 2 visited to Metro Ford Service Centre, Davanagere and found that there was 5-6 liters of water in the Engine and the same has been informed to OP No.2.  It is further submitted that, on 06.06.2018, the Metro Ford Service Centre has given estimate for undertaking the repairs to the tune of Rs.2,35,354-45.  The OP No.2 informed the Metro Ford Service Centre that, the Insurance Company is liable to bear the expenses to an extent of Rs.13,000/- only, the same has been repudiated by the insurance company and made a note on back side of valuation, which was assessed by the Metro Ford, it shows the deficiency in service.  The insurance surveyor has taken 1 ½ months time to give the report to the complainant.  As per the report of the OP No.2, the insurance company is liable only for Rs.13,000/- as against the estimation amount of Rs.2,35,352/-.  It is further submitted that, the insurance company has obtained for zero depreciation coverage, but the insurance company has not given any valid reason for repudiation of the claim as assessed by the Metro Ford, Davanagere, though the cost of Zero depreciation is too high in Iffco-Tokio, as their product compare to other company policies.  Due to non-settling of the claim, the complainant has not taken steps to maintain the vehicle in good condition and now the vehicle is kept idle, due to financial problems, the complainant has not repaired the vehicle.  Due to the act of the insurance company, the complainant has incurred heavy financial loss, suffered mental agony and distress.  The cause of action for this complaint arose on 10.07.2017 when the OP has received the complainant through online, which is within the jurisdiction of this Forum and hence, prayed for allow the complaint.

3.      On service of notice, OPs appeared through Sri. K. Mohan Bhat, Advocate on behalf of OP No.1 and 2 and Sri.Dheerendra Prasad, Advocate appeared on behalf of OP No.3 and filed their respective versions denying all the allegations made in the complaint.  In spite of service of notice to OP No.4 and 5, they did not appear before this Forum and hence, placed ex-parte.   

According to the version filed by the OP No.1 and 2, it is admitted that, they have issued policy No.64140976 for the period from 10.08.2017 to 09.08.2018 to the car bearing Registration No.KA-16 N-4454 and the averments made in para 2 and 3 are true except the loan obtained from Axis Bank, Davanagere.  The averments made in para 4 that, on 26.06.2018, while returning to his house after having dinner at Aishwarya Fort Hotel, Chitradurga, as there was raining, the water entered as usual through silencer, the complainant tried to start the car, but it did not started at all are all false.  It is submitted that, the vehicle was parked under flyover, rain water entered and it was not the proper parking place, which is prone to water stagnation even in case of minor rainfall, as a result water in the combustion chamber entered into the engine and every prudent driver is expected to know the consequence of starting the vehicle in water logged area which will result in seizure of engine.  It is further submitted that, after receiving the claim form, they have appointed a surveyor by name Syed Irshad Ahamed to survey the car, as per the surveyor report, he has allowed the dismantling and cleaning of all the parts related to engine and assessed the loss of Rs.12,728/- and communicated to repairer and even now they are consider the amount by submitting the related repaired bills by the insured.  The surveyor has assessed the dismantling/cleaning charges of engine as Rs.12,729/- and separately the amount payable towards engine parts as Rs.61,882/-, if the insured availed the engine protector policy cover, the total survey report for Rs.74,611/-.  The insurance policy covers only accidental external means and flood risk also.  In this case no accident happened and no major flood happened and it was only the stagnated rain water entered when insured started the vehicle in water, he should have towed the vehicle out of water before starting the vehicle.  It is further submitted that, the complainant has not obtained the engine protector cover to include the risk of engine seizure due to water entry and as such, they are not in a position to entertain the claim and disallowed the replacement of engine related parts.  The averments made in para 5 to 7 are all false and the same is put to strict proof of the same.  Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable.

According to the version filed by the OP No.3, it is submitted that, the complaint is not maintainable against this OP either in law or on facts and this OP is made as party to this proceedings unnecessarily.  It is further submitted that, there is no allegation of any deficiency in service on the part of this OP and the complainant has failed to state as to why this OP is a proper and necessary party in this case.  It is further submitted that, it is true that, the complainant has purchased a Ford Figo Aspire 1.5 TDCI Diesel Titanium SMT car from OP No.3 at Shimoga on 10.08.2017 bearing Engine No.HR41984 and Chassis No.MAJZXXMTKZHR41984 by availing loan from Axis Bank Ltd., Davanagere.  After taking delivery, the vehicle has been insured with OP No.1 and 2 under policy No.348103901102 on 10.08.2007 for the period from 10.08.2017 to 09.08.2018.  It is not known to this OP that, the policy is of bumper to bumper and the same is put to strict proof of the same.  It is not within the knowledge of this OP that, with regard to the incident of the vehicle of the complainant being stranded in rain, the complainant lodged a complaint in Ford customer service care cell and they towed the car to Metro Ford Service Centre at Davanagere and it is also not known to this OP that, after 3-4 days the insurance company Surveyor visited to Metro Ford Service Centre, Davanagere and found that there was 5-6 liters of water in the Engine and the same is denied as false.     It is not known to this OP that, issuance of estimate of repairs for  Rs.2,35,354-45 by OP No.4 is also not known to this OP and there is no business relationship between OP No.3 and OP No.4 apart from the fact that, both the OP No.3 and 4 are the authorized dealers and authorized service centre of OP No.5.  The allegations made in para 6 to 9 are not within the knowledge of this OP and there is no cause of action to file the complaint against this OP.  The complainant has not sought for any relief against this OP No.3 and the complainant has sought relief only against OP No.1 and 2 only.  The complainant has filed this complaint against OP No.3 only to harass and to make unnecessary damage to the fame and reputation of this OP and hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint against this OP.

4.      Complainant herself has examined as PW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and the documents Ex.A-1 to A-7 were got marked and closed his side. On behalf of OP No.1 and 2, one Sri. Anthony Saagu, the Vice President has examined as DW-1 by filing the affidavit evidence and Ex.B-1 & Ex.B-2 documents have been got marked and closed their side.  

 

5.      Arguments heard.

6.      Now the points that arise for our consideration for decision of above complaints are that;

(1)  Whether the complainant proves that the OPs have committed deficiency of service in settling the claim made by him and entitled for the reliefs as prayed for in the above complaint?

              (3) What order?

         7.       Our findings on the above points are as follows:-

                    Point No.1:-Partly in affirmative. 

Point No.2:- As per final order.

REASONS

8.      Point No.1:- There is no dispute between the parties that, the complainant has purchased Ford make FIGO Aspire 1.5 TDCI Diesel Titanium SMT Model Car bearing Registration No.KA-16 N-4454 bearing Engine No.HR41984 and Chassis No.MAJZXXMTKZHR41984 by availing loan from Axis Bank Ltd., Davanagere from OP No.3 and the same has been registered with RTO, Chitradurga.  It is pertinent to note that the vehicle has been insured with OP No.1 and 2 under policy No.348103901102 on 10.08.2007 for the period from 10.08.2017 to 09.08.2018 as bumper to bumper coverage known to be as nil depreciation cover.  That being the case that on 26.06.2018, while returning to his house after having dinner at Aishwarya Fort Hotel, Chitradurga, as there was raining, the water entered as usual through silencer, the complainant tried to start the car, but it did not started at all.  Thereafter, the complainant has lodged a complaint in Ford Customer Service Care Cell and, for that they have assisted and towed the vehicle to Metro Ford Service Centre, Davanagere.  After 3-4 days, the insurance company Surveyor has visited te Metro Ford Service Centre, Davanagere and found that there was 5-6 liters of water in the Engine and the same has been informed to OP No.2.  On 06.06.2018, the Metro Ford Service Centre has given estimation for undertaking the repairs to the tune of Rs.2,35,354-45.  The OP No.2 informed the Metro Ford Service Centre that, the Insurance Company is liable to bear the expenses to an extent of Rs.13,000/- only, the same has been repudiated by the insurance company and made a note on back side of valuation, which was assessed by the Metro Ford, it shows the deficiency in service.  The insurance surveyor has taken 1 ½ months time to give the report to the complainant.  As per the report of the OP No.2, the insurance company is liable only for Rs.13,000/- as against the estimation amount of Rs.2,35,352/-.  The insurance company has repudiated the claim of the complainant by making a note on the back side of the valuation which was assessed by the Metro Ford, it clearly shows that the OP No.1 and 2 have committed deficiency of service.  The Advocate for the OP No.2 has addressed his argument and taken a contention that, the engine of the vehicle is not covered under the policy and further submitted that the surveyor has estimated and assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.12,708/-, that amount to be paid by the OP No.1 and 2.  Further it is argued that the vehicle was not insured as bumper to bumper.  But OP No.3 Advocate argued that the complainant has obtained loan from them for the purpose of purchasing the car and he is no way concerned to OP No.1 and 2 or the complainant with respect to claim made by the complainant.  The complainant is liable to return the loan amount to OP No.3.  As per the documents produced by the complainant, it clearly goes to show that the cost of repair of the car is of Rs.88,003/-.  Accordingly, the complainant has paid the above said amount to the Metro Ford and taken back the vehicle.  Therefore,  arguments addressed by the OP No.1 and 2 is not sustainable under law, because the vehicle is insured under bumper to bumper policy.  Such being the case, the question of repudiation in giving the repaired cost to the complainant does not arise.  So, in any angle, it shows that the OP No.1 and 2 have committed deficiency of service in paying the insurance claim to the complainant and labour charges of the said vehicle of Rs.43,575/- and Rs.1,88,000/- towards cost of parts of the vehicle. 

9.      We have gone through the entire documents filed by the complainant and OP No.1 and 2.  There is no dispute between the parties that, the complainant has insured his vehicle with OP No.1 and 2 and on the date of incident, the policy was in force.  The main contention taken by the OP No.1 and 2 that, the vehicle was not covered under bumper to bumper policy, but the documents produced by the complainant those are marked as Ex.A-1 to A-7 shows that the vehicle of the complainant is covered under bumper to bumper policy.  Accordingly, the OP No.1 and 2 are bound settle the claim made by the complainant.  The OP No.1 and 2 have taken a contention that the vehicle of the complainant is not covered under bumper to bumper policy, the same is not sustainable under law.  The Ex.B-1 produced by the OP No.1 and 2 never stated anywhere that the engine of the vehicle is not covered under the policy.  Such being the case, the question of repudiation of the claim by the OP No.1 and 2 does not arise.  The complainant has proved his case by producing sufficient documents.  The documents produced by the complainant proves that, the complainant has paid the repair charges to the Metro Ford Service Centre, Davanagere.  The OP No.1 and 2 have repudiated the claim of the complainant only on the ground that, the engine is not covered under the policy, the same is not sustainable under law.  Hence, the OP No.1 and 2 have committed deficiency of service.  Accordingly, this Point No.1 is held as partly affirmative to the complainant.          

            10.     Point No.3:- As discussed on the above point and for the reasons stated therein we pass the following:-

ORDER

The complaint filed by the complainant U/s 12 of CP Act 1986 is hereby partly allowed.

It is ordered that, the OP No.1 and 2 are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a from 26.06.2018 till realization.

It is further ordered that, the OP No.1 and 2 are hereby directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards costs of this proceedings to the complainant.  

Complaint filed as against OP No.3 to 5 is hereby dismissed.

It is further ordered that, the OP No.1 and 2 are hereby directed to comply the above order within 30 days from the date of this order.

(This order is made with the consent of Member after the correction of the draft on 15/03/2019 and it is pronounced in the open Court after our signatures)         

                                     

MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT

-:ANNEXURES:-

Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:

PW-1:  Complainant by way of affidavit evidence.

Witnesses examined on behalf of OPs:

DW-1:  Sri. Sri. Anthony Saagu, the Vice President of OP No.1 & 2 by way of affidavit evidence. 

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

01	Ex-A-1:-	Tax Invoice dated 01.10.2018
02	Ex-A-2:-	Vehicle report card dated 04.09.2018
03	Ex-A-3:-	Repair invoice of Metro Ford dated 01.10.2018
04	Ex-A-4 and 5:-	Original cash receipts dated 04.09.2018 and 01.10.2018
05	Ex-A-6:-	Paper publication dated 02.06.2018

Documents marked on behalf of OPs:

01	Ex-B-1:-	Policy copy
02	Ex.B-2:-	Survey report dated 22.10.2018

 

 

 

MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT

Rhr**