Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/510/2018

Mrs. Kiran Yadav - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Rohit Malik Adv.

27 Aug 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	510/2018
Date of Institution	:	10.09.2018
Date of Decision	:	27.08.2019

 

                                 

                                        

 

Mrs.Kiran Yadav w/o Mr.Sarbjeet Kumar Yadav r/o H.No.260, Sector 56, Chandigarh -160055.

                           ...  Complainant.

Versus

1. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., (through its Motor Vehicle Claims Manager), SCO-156-159, 2^nd Floor, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh -160009.

 

2. Krishna Auto Sales Dealer-cum-service Centre (through its Service Manager Mr.Rajesh Rohilla), Plot No.177-E, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh

 

3. Honda Motorcycle & Scooter India Pvt. Ltd., (through its CEO or Director) Commercial Complex II, Sector 49-50, Golf Course Extension Road, Gurgaon, Haryana-122018.

 

4. Macro Group Pvt. Ltd., (Authorized Honda Two Wheeler Service Centre through its Service Manager), Plot No.B-26, Industrial Area, Phase-3, Mohali(Punjab).

 

5. Surveyor, Mr.Vipin, Based at Office Address-SCO 156-159, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh -160009.

…. Opposite Parties.

 

BEFORE: SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

SHRI RAVINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

Argued by:-

 

              Sh.Rohit Malik, Adv. for the complainant

Sh.Devinder Kumar, Adv. Proxy for Sh.Rajesh Verma, Adv. for OP No.1.

              None for OPs No.2 & 3.

              Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Adv. for OP no.4.

              OP No.5 exparte.

 

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.        Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he purchased a two wheeler make Honda having registration No.CH-01-BL-9971 from OP No.2, insured with OP No.1 vide Insurance Policy valid from 09.02.2018 to 09.02.2019 (Annexure C-1).  It has further been pleaded that in addition to the accidental coverage of two wheeler under the Insurance Policy, the same was also covered by OPs No.2 and 3 against any manufacturing defect for a period of two years or 32000 km whichever is earlier. It has further been averred that in the wee hours of 23.07.2018 at about 9.30 p.m. it was raining heavily and her husband who was driving the vehicle in question reached Near Godrej Chowk/Radha Swami Crossing at airport Road, Mohali met with an accident as the bike fell into a deep pit right in the middle of the road and the same was extensively damaged. The vehicle was taken to OP No.4 for its repairs.  Upon intimation, OP No.1 deputed its Surveyor & Loss Assessor who alleged to have assured  the complainant to submit the report with recommendations to OP No.1 to make the payment of claim.  The complainant incurred a sum of Rs.13,304/- on the repairs of the vehicle in question.  However, OP No.1 repudiated the same vide letter dated 13.08.2018, received on 18.08.2018. She received another letter dated 21.08.2018 with subject reminder-2 regarding repudiation of the claim.  It has further been averred that  Surveyor of OP No.1 called the complainant at the Service Centre on 02.08.2018 and assured her that OP No.1 was ready to settle the claim for one damaged alloy wheel only instead of whole claim to which she disagreed. She submitted a representation dated 21.08.2018 against the repudiation letter dated 13.08.2018 to which a reply dated 29.08.2018 was received. It has further been averred that OP No.1 did not supply the complete policy docket with terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy to her.  It has further been averred that the vehicle met with an accident on 23.07.2008 and has no concern with the wear and tear of the vehicle and as such OP No.1 had illegally repudiated the claim.  Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.        In its written statement, OP No.1 while admitting the factual matrix of the case has pleaded that  the claim was rightly repudiated after scrutinizing the documents and the Survey Report and the same was conveyed to the complainant vide letter dated 13.08.2018 that the wheels rims could not be deformed in a single event and the damages were not apparent and the same were the result of normal wear and tear. It has further been pleaded that as per condition No.1 of the policy, the company is not liable to pay qua the damages which are consequential in nature etc. as detailed in the letter.  It has further been pleaded that reply/explanation submitted to the letters dated 13.08.2018 and 21.08.2018 was found to be unsatisfactory and as such vide letter dated 11.09.2018 the claim was repudiated and the same was conveyed to the complainant giving reference to earlier communications.  It has further been pleaded that the surveyor assessed the loss to Rs.3,350/- vide his report dated 30.08.2018 and gave the observation that there is no physical accidental impact visible on front alloy wheel and the damages were not accidental in nature and not have any external impact on alloy wheel.  The remaining allegations have been denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3.        In its written statement, OP No.2 has pleaded that the complaint is liable to be dismissed as no cause of action has ever accrued to the complainant qua it who is an authorized dealership of OP No.3 and is only responsible to undertake the maintenance and repairs of the motorcycle on charge basis either from the motorcycle owners or the manufacturers as the case may be.  It has further been pleaded that the vehicle was insured with OP No.1 and got repaired from OP No.4 as alleged and it has only been arrayed on account of sale of the motorcycle in question. The remaining allegations have been denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
4.        OP No.3 has adopted the reply filed by OP No.2. 
5.        In its written statement, OP No.4 has pleaded that the complaint is not maintainable qua it as the same pertained to the accidental damage claim of the vehicle and the dispute is between the insurance company and the complainant and it has no role to play. The remaining allegations have been denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
6.        The complainant filed rejoinder to the written reply of the Opposite Parties controverting their stand and reiterating his own.
7.        Despite due service through registered post, OP No.5 failed to put in appearance and as a result thereof it was ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide order dated 22.10.2018.
8.        We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and have gone through the documents on record.
9.        The only question to be determined in this case is as to whether the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated by OP No.1-Insurance Company or not.  The answer to this question is in the affirmative.
10.        As per the averments made in para 10 of the complaint, the complainant alleged to have claimed a sum of Rs.13,304/- on account of the repairs of the damaged vehicle as follows:-

	Cost of replacing the damaged rear alloy wheel	Rs.4789/-
	Cost of replacing the damaged front alloy wheel	Rs.3895/-
	Cost of replacing damaged battery	Rs.1500/-
	Cost of replacing front chimta and shockers	Rs.1190/-
	Labour charges	Rs.800/-
	Cost of side stand of bike	Rs.150/-
	Cost of parking at service centre @ Rs.20/- per day	Rs.980/-
	Total:	13304/-

8. The complainant has alleged that the aforesaid damages to the vehicle are the result of the accidental loss as the vehicle in question fell into a deep pit in the middle of the road. However, the Surveyor deputed by the OP after thorough inspection of the vehicle at the workshop has clearly observed in the report dated 30.08.2018 (Annexure R-5) that there was no physical accidental impact visible on the front alloy wheel and recommended the Company to take the decision as per the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy.   
9. The OP-1 company after taking into consideration the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy and the Survey Report has repudiated the claim on the ground that the loss to the vehicle was the result of normal wear and tear and not on account of the accidental damages and thus it does fall under Section I-Loss or Damage to the vehicle insured as per which the Company was not liable to make any payment in respect of (a) consequential loss, depreciation, wear and tear, mechanical or electrical breakdown, failures or breakages.
10.        It may be stated here that the vehicle in question had already run 17594 kms on the date of the accident i.e. 23.07.2018. Keeping in view the replacement of the parts of the vehicle in question as mentioned above, it can be easily concluded that the same was due to regular use, normal wear and tear of the vehicle as there was no other apparent visible accidental damage to any other part of the vehicle in question. Had the vehicle met with an accident in the manner as alleged in the complaint then the vehicle certainly would have suffered damages on the other parts of the vehicle. We are, thus, of the considered view that the normal defects which a vehicle develops due to regular use and wear and tear cannot be said to be result of the accidental loss and the insurance company cannot be made liable to indemnify for the same. Under these circumstances, the repudiation of the claim by the Insurance Company on the ground that the loss was not covered under the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy, was justified and legal.
11.        Faced with this situation, the Counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant is not bound by the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy as the complete docket of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy has not been supplied. However, this plea of the Counsel for the complainant deserves to be rejected because it is not understood that as to why she did not raise any protest regarding non-receipt of the complete docket of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy immediately after its issuance (09.02.2018) and waited till the date of accident (23.07.2018).
12.        For the reasons recorded above, the complaint being devoid of any merit deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.
13.        Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

27/08/2019

Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER