THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOZHIKODE.
C.C.8/2009
Dated this the 11th day of July 2014.
( Present: Sri. G. Yadunadhan, B.A., LLB. : President)
Sri. L. Jyothikumar, B.A., LLB. : Member
Smt.Beena Joseph, M.A : Member
ORDER
By G.Yadunadhan, President:
The case of the complainant is that complainant is the owner of the OPel Corsa Car bearing Registration No.KL II T 5279. The said car is insured with the opposite party company vide policy No.OG 091004-1801-00002611 covering a period from 18.05.2008 to 17.05.2009. The terms stipulated in insurance certificate covers, losses caused due to flood, Typhoon, Hurricane, storm, tempest, inundation, cyclone Hailstorms, Frost etc. On 24.10.2008 at around 9 P.M. complainant’s above mentioned car happened to be stranded off at Koduvally in Calicut-Mysore National Highway, while driving through a water logged portion of the road. The flooding was caused due to the out burst of sudden heavy rain. A stretch of road near Koduvally town was submerged under water and hence vehicles through that portion of the road was moving with out most caution. The complainant’s son was driving her vehicle behind a Maruthi car which safely covered the water logged portion of the road, but the complainant’s car stopped at the mid way portion of the water logged road. There after the complainant’s car was pushed out of the water logged portion of the road ahead. After while complainant’s son had attempted to start the vehicle but its engine does not responded.
On the very next day the vehicle was towed to the German Motors workshop at Calicut. The German Motors Company mechanics after inspecting the vehicle informed the complainant that the car stopped functioning due to gushing of water in its engine from the flooded portion of the road. The German Motors, Calicut had immediately informed the matter to the third opposite party and there after one of the surveyor Mr.Sasidharan inspected the vehicle from German Motors, Calicut. As per the demand of the surveyor Mr.Sasidharan the complainant had given a brief note of the incident to the 3rd opposite party but there was no intimation from the opposite parties to the German Motors Company or to the complainant to rectify the defects of the vehicle and to claim insurance. After wards the complainant received a show cause letter dtd. 11.11.2008 from the second opposite party stating some irrational aspects relating to the functioning of the vehicle and directing the complainant to offer her explanation regarding some aspects relating to the vehicle, within 7 days there of.
The terms and conditions in the policy indemnifies the complainant from all losses arising from flood, Typhoon, Hurricane, storm, tempest, inundation, Cyclone Hailstorms, Frost etc. The damage to the complainant’s car was caused from the flooding in Calicut-Mysore National Highway. Hence the opposite party’s company is bound to compensate the complainant from all damages caused to the complainant’s car from the flooding in the National high way.
Since the opposite parties have not taken any steps to repair the vehicle, the complainant herself got repaired the vehicle from the German Motors Company on 13.12.2008 by expending an amount of Rs.1,17,000/-. The opposite party is bound to refund the repairing charge. Therefore complainant seeking relief against the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.1,17,000/- to the complainant towards repairing charge and a further sum ofRs.10,000/- for mental pain and sufferings.
Opposite parties entered in appearance and filed their version stating that the complainant is not entitled to get any compensation from the opposite parties. It is true that complainant was the R.C.Owner of the vehicle and the vehicle validity insured with this opposite party from 18.05.2008 to 17.05.2009. It is also true that the complainant’s car stopped at the mid way portion of water logged road. It is a fact that the complainant had tried to start the engine while the vehicle was still in contact with water. The claim for damage due to failure of inside engine parts is not covered as per the policy. Complainant has admitted that he tried to start the engine while it was still in contact with water This opposite party denies all the allegation and averments as per the complainant. Under these circumstances complaint is liable to dismissed.
Points for consideration.
- Whether any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties?
- Whether complainant is entitled to get any compensation? If so what is the relief and cost.
Complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A17 were marked. The document Ext.A1shows no dispute regarding the incident, but the incident occurred due to negligence of the complainant itself. It is admitted while cross examine the complainant that the vehicle was stopped while passing through the water. Any way complainant himself knew about the water entered to the engine, German Motors also intimated to the complainant that the water entered in to the engine when tried to start while passing the car through water logged the water entered in to the engine. Surveyor also reported that the water entered in to the engine. CW1 his own version stated that the car while repairing it was noted that the water entered in to the engine, it might be happened while he passing through water logged when he tried to start the car. Out of the repair charge 45% paid by the opposite parties. CW2 also deposed that the incident means water entered due to the negligence of the complainant itself. Considering all the aspects since the 45% repair charge already received by the complainant from insurance. No merit in this complaint, Complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Pronounced in the open court this the 11th day of July 2014.
Date of filing:01.01.2009
SD/-PRESIDENT SD/- MEMBER SD/- MEMBER
APPENDIX
Documents exhibited for the complainant:
A1.Policy schedule issued by the opposite party to the complainant:
A2.Photo copy of letter issued to the second opposite party
A3. letter issued by the second opposite party to the complainant dtd.11.11.2008.
A4. Reply letter from the complainant to the opposite party dtd.15.11.2008.
A5. Letter received from second opposite party to the complainant dtd.24.11.2008.
A6.Lawyer notice issued to the opposite parties dtd.28.11.2008
A7.Postal receipts (3 Nos.) dtd.29.11.2008.
A8. Acknowledgment card dtd.01.12.2008
A9. Acknowledgment card dtd.03.12.2008.
A10. Invoice & Payment receipt given by German Motors dtd.13.12.2008.
A11.Report obtained from German Motors, Calicut dtd.27.05.2008.
A12. Preliminary Inspection Report issued by German Motors dtd.29.10.2008.
A13. Technical report issued by German Motors dtd.05.03.2010.
A14. True copy of Repair order from PVS Ford dtd.30.08.2010
A15. Vehicle repair History issued by PVS Ford dtd.18/07/2011.
A16. Invoice bill issued by PVS Ford dtd.30.07.2010.
A17. Payee Advice issued by opposite party dtd.18/11/2010
Documents exhibited for the opposite party:
Nil
Witness examined for the complainant:
PW1 Dr.Rabecca Abraham (Complainant
Witness examined for the opposite party:
CW1 & CW2
Sd/-President
//True copy//
(Forwarded/By Order)
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT.
