STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                                    U.T., CHANDIGARH 

                                    (Additional Bench)

 IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited, through its authorized signatory, IFFCO Tower-II,  Plot No.3, Sector-29, Gurugram-122001

(Earlier IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited, IFFCO Bhawan, 4^th floor, Plot No.2B and C, Sector 28-A, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager 160002)

                                                                                        … Appellant

V E R S U S

1. Avtar Singh Bhandari son of Late Sh.Chaman Singh Bhandari, aged about 64 years, r/o House No.114, Block-A, Golden Enclave, Adarsh Nagar, Naya Gaon, District Mohali.

2.  M/s Joshi Automotive Private Limited, Plot No.67, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh through its Managing Director

3.  M/s Honda Cars India Limited, Plot No.A-1, Sector 40-41, Surajpur-Kasna road, Greater Noida, Industrial Development Area, Distt. Gautam Budh Nagar (U.P.) 201306 through its Managing Director

                                                                         ..... Respondents

Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against order dated 06.07.2023 passed by       District       Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh in Consumer Complaint No.712/2020.

BEFORE:       MRS. PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER

                       Mr.PREETINDER SINGH,MEMBER

Argued by:      Sh.Yogesh Gupta,Advocate for the appellant.

                         Sh.Devinder Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.1                             alogwith Sh.Avtar Singh Bhandari, respondent                                     No.1/complainant.

                         Sh.Rajesh Verma, Advocate for respondent No.2

                         Ms. Mannu Chaudhary, Advocate for respondent No.3.                               

 PER PREETINDER SINGH, MEMBER

                   This appeal is directed against the order dated 06.07.2023, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as “the Ld. Lower Commission”),  in Consumer Complaint No.712 of 2020,vide which, it allowed the complaint with following directions ;

“a)The OPs No.1 & 2 are directed to repair the vehicle in question by replacing necessary parts, if any, making the vehicle roadworthy forthwith and the OP No.3 (Insurance Company) shall pay all such charges to OPs No.1 & 2 forthwith.   

b)  The OP No.3 is directed to pay an amount of Rs.One lakh to the complainant towards compensation for the harassment, mental agony and loss suffered by him due to its deficient service;

c) The OP No.3 shall also pay litigation cost of Rs.15000/- to the complainant.

d)  The OPs No.1 & 2 shall not claim any miscellaneous or parking charges from the complainant in respect of the vehicle in question.

           This order shall be complied with by the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy.    

         In case of failure on the part of OP No.3 to reimburse the repair charges, as raised by OPs No.1 & 2, then it shall be liable to pay such amount to them or to the complainant, as the case may be, along with interest @9% p.a. from the date of invoice or payment till its realization.”

2.        Before the Ld. Lower Commission, it was case of the complainant/respondent No.1 that his Honda Jazz Car bearing Regn.No.CH-01-BE-4417, was duly insured with OP Insurance Company /appellant for the period from 14.12.2019 to 13.12.2020 (Annexure C-13).  It was averred in the complaint that the said car of the complainant had breakdown, during the policy period, on 26.8.2020 near Light Point of PEC, Chandigarh while the complainant was on his way to Harmony Honda, Indl.Area, Phase-2, Chandigarh.  The car was towed to OP NO.1- Joshi Automotive Private Limited/Respondent No.2, an authorized service centre, for doing the needful.  OP No.1 intimated the complainant that on inspection, it found that the damage/loss to the vehicle was covered under insurance policy and accordingly it had intimated the loss of the vehicle to OP No.3 Insurance Company/appellant.  OP No.3 then appointed Sh.Mohit Sharma, Surveyor for assessing the claim of the  complainant. The Complainant supplied all the necessary information and documents to the surveyor.  Thereafter, the Surveyor sent letter dated 24.10.2020 to the complainant informing him that the damage to the engine happened due to failure of internal parts which was not covered under the  insurance policy.  The complainant then took up the matter with OP No.1, who sent email dated 8.9.2020 (Annexure C-20) stating therein that on their observations, the water entry was observed in the engine, resulting into engine blockage. Subsequently, the complainant approached OP No.3- Insurance Company to consider his claim under the insurance  policy, but  OP No.3 issued letter dated 27.11.2020 (Annexure C-22) repudiating the claim of the complainant on the ground that the damage to the vehicle was due to blocked engine and failure of internal engine part, hence there was no external impact and as the loss had occurred due to failure of internal engine part, so the claim was not tenable and the same was repudiated.  It was  stated that the vehicle was lying with OP NO.1 since 26.8.2020 but instead of resolving the issue the opposite parties harassed the complainant with mala fide intention and the complainant was made to run from pillar to post.  Hence, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, a consumer complaint was filed before the Ld. Lower Commission. 

 3.                  Pursuant to issuance of notice, Opposite parties appeared before the Ld. Lower Commission and contested the complaint.  OP No.1-Joshi Automotive Pvt. Ltd. in its  written version while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that the vehicle in question was reported to the workshop of the answering OP on 26.8.2020.  It was further  stated that the engine of the complainant’s vehicle was severely damaged due to the water getting into the engine, when it was passing through water logged area.  It was also stated that after inspection of the vehicle, it was found that the engine block was damaged and engine oil had already drained.  It was further stated  that the answering Opposite Party, upon observation found that water was found inside the engine and it was concluded that the current condition of the engine was due to HYDROSTATIC LOCK, a specific type of Automotive engine Damage that occurs when the water enters the engine and is compressed in one or more cylinders.  It was further stated that the damage sequence often called is “hydrostatic lock”, when the water enters a typically automotive engine cylinder during the intake stroke and in this case also, water having been sucked in the engine, as the car had gone through a water logged area.  It was pleaded that the claim of the complainant fell within the purview of the insurance policy issued by OP No.3 and was not covered by OPs No.1 & 2.  It was pleaded that there was  no deficiency in service and denying all other allegations, a prayer was made for  dismissal of the complaint.

 4.                OP No.2-Honda Cars India Ltd. in its  written version stated  that the relationship between OP NO.1 & OP No.2 is purely on principal-to-principal basis and each party is responsible for its own action.  It was further  stated that the complainant never had any direct dealing with OP NO.2; the said vehicle was purchased by the complainant from OP NO.1, who is one of the authorized dealers.   Any manufacturing defect in the vehicle was denied.  It was further stated  that the complainant failed to prove by cogent and credible evidence supported by opinion of an expert automobile/mechanical engineer that the vehicle suffered from inherent manufacturing defect.  It was further stated that to redress the grievances of the complainant, a thorough inspection of the vehicle was carried out by the dealership- OP No.1 and on the basis of their observations, the water entry was observed in the engine resulting into engine blockage and any repair/replacement job would be carried out on payment basis.     Denying all other allegations, a prayer was made  for dismissal of the complaint.

 5.               OP No.3 - IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Company Ltd.    in its written version   while admitting the factual matrix of the case stated that besides the standard motor car policy, the complainant had also opted for additional covers like Depreciation Waiver, Engine and Gear Box Protection Cover, Loss of Key Cover and Return to Invoice Value and paid additional premium.  It was stated that from the averments of complainant, it was clear that the vehicle stopped on its own without any external cause and hence it was mechanical failure of the vehicle, which was not covered under the policy in question.   It was also stated that the said loss to the engine was neither covered by the standard policy nor by an add-on cover engine and gear box protection cover opted under the insurance policy by the complainant.  It was further stated that the coverage provided under the engine and gear box protection cover provided cover to the engine and gear box only arising out of water ingression or leakage of lubricant oil due to accidental external means.  It was pleaded that the engineers of OPs No.1 & 2 could not explain the cause of engine seizure. It was further stated  that the complainant in a statement to the Surveyor mentioned that the vehicle was neither struck with any stone nor any water entered the engine .  It was further  stated that the Surveyor deputed by OP No.3 did not find any circumstances leading to engine seizure due to hitting of some stone underneath the engine or entry of water in the engine.  It was further   stated that the claim was rightly repudiated as it did not fall within the purview of the insurance policy.  Denying all other allegations, it was pleaded that there was no deficiency in service on its part and a prayer was made for  dismissal of the complaint.

6.                  On appraisal of the complaint, and the evidence adduced on record by the parties , Ld. Lower Commission  allowed the complaint, as stated in the earlier part of the order.

7.               Aggrieved against  the  aforesaid order passed by the Ld. Lower Commission, the instant Appeal  has been filed by the Appellant/Opposite Party No.3 for setting aside the impugned order.

8.               We have heard Counsel for the parties  and   have gone through the evidence and record of the case with utmost care and circumspection.

 9.                 The ground taken by the appellant is that respondent No.1/complainant lodged a claim on account of  engine failure of the car in question which was rightly repudiated by it as the same did not fall within the purview of the insurance policy. Even the loss to the engine was not covered under the add-on-engine & gear box protection cover opted under the insurance policy as the coverage under the said cover provided cover to the engine & gear box only arising out of water ingression or leakage of lubricant oil due to accidental external means. Respondent No.1/complainant in his statement to the surveyor has mentioned that the vehicle was neither struck with any stone nor any water entered the engine and the surveyor also did not find any circumstance leading to engine seizure due to hitting of some stone underneath the engine or entry of water in the engine. Even the surveyor in his report dated 11.11.2020 has clearly observed that there was no external impact on the insured vehicle and the engine block got damaged without any external impact. Hence, the loss does not fall within the purview of the Policy and it seems that the loss has occurred due to the failure of the internal engine parts.  It was further contended on behalf of the appellant that during the pendency of the complaint before the Ld. Lower Commission,   Director, Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh, was directed to constitute expert committee to inspect the vehicle and submit the reasons for leakage of oil from beneath the body of the vehicle. As per the expert opinion dated 19.1.2023 no traces or evidence was found for leakage of oil from beneath the body of the vehicle. It was further contended by the appellant that as per the terms and conditions of the Engine & Gear box Protection cover in the Insurance policy, the appellant is not liable for more than 50% of the IDV if the age of the vehicle is less than 4 years and more than 35% of IDV if the age of the vehicle is 4 years or more but the Ld. Lower Commission failed to appreciate this aspect of the terms and conditions of the policy, as such the appellant cannot be directed to pay any amount beyond the IDV of the vehicle i.e. Rs.3,44,950/-.

10.              There is no denying the fact that the car in question was received by the workshop of M/s Joshi Automotives Pvt. Ltd. –respondent No.2 through towing/recovery van. It was  case of respondent No.2 that after inspection of the vehicle, it was found that engine block was damaged and engine oil was already drained. Required parameters were followed and after diagnosis, it was observed that water entered into the engine, when it was passing through water logged area and it was concluded that the current condition of the engine was due to Hydrostatic lock- a specific type of Automotive Engine damage that occurs when the water enters the engine and is compressed in one or more cylinders. The damage sequence often called is “hydrostatic lock’ when the water enters a typically automotive engine cylinder during the intake stroke. Water, unlike the fuel/air mixture is incompressible and during the compression stroke, locks the piston. This condition tends to overload the connecting rod, causing a bend of the rod and severe engine damage. A common way for water to enter the engine is when the car is driven through water logged area, sufficiently deep, to allow water suction into the air intake system of the vehicle. In its reply to the complaint, respondent No.2 took up the above plea and stated that in the car in question, water having been sucked in the engine, as the car had gone through a water logged area.  

11.            At the time of raising claim with the appellant, claim form was filled up by respondent No.1. The Motor Claim Form is available at page 252 of the Lower Commission file wherein in the column- 6 “Please describe how the incident occurred”, it was explained by the insured as under;              

“While driving the car there was rough road also water on the road and car’s underbody hit with stones and after few minute car’s engine stop working.”

 12.          During the pendency of the complaint,   the Director, Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh  was directed to constitute expert committee to inspect the vehicle and submit the reasons for leakage of oil from beneath the body of the vehicle.  In the Expert Opinion  duly signed by Prof. Sanjeev Kumar, Professor & Head, Mechanical Engineering Department, Punjab Engineering College (Deemed to be University), Chandigarh, Dr.Ankit Yadav, Assistant Professor and Sh.Gopal Dass, W.I. dated 19.01.2023,  it was  reported that “After visual inspection by the committee, no traces or evidences were found for leakage of oil from beneath the body of the vehicle.”  However, in objections  to the expert report filed by  respondent No.2, it was stated that the report of the expert committee is incomplete as the oil had already drained because of external damage but the committee has not mentioned the damage pattern under beneath the body as per directions of the Hon’ble Commission. The oil has not drained due to any  manufacturing defect in the vehicle.

13.              The Ld. Lower Commission   rightly observed that  Insurance Company/appellant except bald assertions regarding failure of the internal part of the vehicle, failed to bring on record any cogent and reliable evidence in the shape of the report of some Technical Expert to this effect.  Without there being any concrete & credible evidence, the version of the appellant  that it was a internal/mechanical failure, cannot be accepted.    Likewise, the opinion of the Surveyor that the loss has occurred due to failure of internal engine part, in the absence of any expert report from the field of mechanical or automobile, cannot be accepted. 

14.              In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the view  that the order passed by the Ld. District Commission is based on correct appreciation of   evidence and law on the point and does not suffer from illegality and perversity warranting any interference of this Commission.                

15.                   For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed,   with no order as to costs. The order of the Ld. Lower Commission is upheld.

16.               It is pertinent to mention here that during the pendency of this appeal, respondent No.1/complainant has moved an application for placing on record Annexures C-23 to C-25, vide which he paid the total amount of Rs.2,05,488/- for getting the car repaired. It has been requested that repair cost may be granted to the complainant with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of invoice till its realization. The Ld. Lower Commission, in the impugned order  has issued directions to the appellant to pay such charges to OPs NO.1 & 2 forthwith. Since the appeal of the appellant stands dismissed, the order passed by the Ld. Lower Commission shall be complied with in its letter and spirit. Respondent No.1/complainant may approach the executing Court for implementation of the order/decree.

17.             Misc. application, if any pending, also stands disposed of

18.         Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

19.                     The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.