Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/327/2014

Ms. Vandana Chawla - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Devinder Kumar, Adv.

10 Dec 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	327 of 2014
Date  of  Institution	:	04.07.2014
Date   of   Decision	:	10.12.2015

 

 

 

 

 

Ms.Vandana Chawla w/o Sh.Harkamal Kumar, resident of H.No.3, GHS-74, Sector 20, Panchkula.

 

             …..Complainant

Versus

 

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Chandigarh, UT, through its Branch Office SCO No.139-140, Madhya Marg, Sector 8, Chandigarh, UT.

 

    IInd Address: SCO No.14, Sector 5, Panchkula.

 

 

….. Opposite Party

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN                 PRESIDENT

         SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU       MEMBER

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

 

 

For complainant(s)      :     Sh.Devinder Kumar, Advocate

 

For Opposite Party(s)   :     Sh.Rajesh Verma, Advocate

 

 

PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

 

 

          As per the case, the complainant got her Car bearing Regd. No.HR-03Q-0266 insured with Opposite Party vide Ann.C-1 from 21.4.2013 to 22.4.2014.  It is averred that on 27.01.2014, Sh.Tarun Singh s/o Sh.Mahipal Singh, a colleague and friend of complainant, was driving the car while going from Sector 8, Panchkula to Sector 20, Panchkula and when they reached near Sector 4/11 Panchkula at about 6.30/6.45 PM, the car suddenly stopped.  Then, the car was towed to the workshop of Lally Automobiles, Chandigarh, who after inspection revealed that some heavy object hit the lower part of the car, which resulted to damage of engine oil tank, engine oil drained out and thus resulted to damage to engine of the car. The Opposite Party was intimated about the loss and the estimate prepare3d by Lally Automobiles, Chandigarh was also submitted to Opposite Party (Ann.C-4).  The surveyor, appointed by the Opposite Party, assessed the loss to the car to the tune of Rs.34,692/- and the complainant paid such amount.  However, when the claim was lodged with the Opposite Party, it was rejected on the flimsy ground that the loss suffered was not due to any accident, hence not payable. Alleging the said repudiation as illegal, hence this complaint has been filed.

 

2]       The Opposite Party has filed reply and admitted the insurance of the vehicle, damage caused to the vehicle during currency of the insurance policy, receipt of intimation about the loss and appointment of Surveyor to assess the loss.  It is submitted that the Surveyor observed that the oil sump of the vehicle was got damaged due to external impact and the oil had leaked and the vehicle had been run without engine oil leading to oil starvation and failure of other internal engine parts (Ann.R-2). All the internal damages are consequential losses and the insured complainant was apprised of the fact.  It is pleaded that the liability of the insured/Opposite Party is limited to oil chamber only and all other internal damages are consequential losses.  It is also pleaded that as per the assessment made, the net assessed loss parts plus labour was assessed at Rs.10645.67.  It is denied that Surveyor had assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.34,692/-.  Rest of allegations have been denied with a prayer to dismiss the complaint.

 

3]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

4]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

 

5]       The complainant, who is the owner of Honda Brio Car of 2013 Model, which was insured by the Opposite Party from 21.4.2013 to 20.4.2014.  The said vehicle suffered a loss on account of an external damage to the oil sump.  The vehicle was taken to authorised dealer for repairs, wherein a total amount of Rs.34,118/- towards expenses were incurred.  The loss was intimated to the Opposite Party, who appointed Surveyor to assess the loss.  However, the said Surveyor while declaring the Net Assessed amount to the tune of Rs.10,645/- had even opined that the vehicle in question had run on without engine oil after the external impact on the oil sump and as such, the damages to the engine parts, were consequential in nature and also that the consumables for e.g. oil and other such items too were not covered, therefore, the only amount assessed to be paid to the complainant was limited to Rs.10,645/-.  The complainant had refused to accept the said assessed amount and has preferred the present complaint seeking the quote relief.

 

6]       The Opposite Party while contesting the claim of the complainant has heavily relied upon the Surveyor’s report and claiming that the assessed amount was duly offered to the complainant through a claim settlement voucher (Ann.R-3 colly.).  Thus claiming no deficiency in service on its part, has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

7]       We have minutely perused the documents placed on record by the parties and the only issue, which needs to be deliberated upon is with regard to the loss suffered by the engine of the vehicle, deserves to be termed as consequential loss or not.  The Surveyor/Loss Assessor appointed by the Opposite Party has opined that the damage to the engine parts was caused as the vehicle in question had continued to run even after the engine had been starved off the oil, which had drained due to the external impact on the oil sump when the same was in motion. 

 

8]       Though the Opposite Party has also placed on record an affidavit of the Surveyor/Loss Assessor in support of his report, reiterating that the loss to the engine parts, is termed as consequential loss and the same is not payable as per terms & conditions of the policy.

 

9]       It is necessary to mention here that though Surveyor/Loss Assessor is certainly a competent person to give his opinion about the happening of the manner of loss.  However, it is also necessary for him to explain that his opinion is based on scientific and logical conclusions, so that such opinion is appreciated while deciding the disputed questions as raised against such reports.

 

10]      The Surveyor while giving his opinion about the draining of the oil from the damaged oil sump of the vehicle in question, has nowhere quantified about the manner in which the complete oil had escaped from the oil sump.  It would not be out of place to mention here that the drainage of oil from any damaged part of vehicle is directly proportional to the size of damage and also in order to lay the blame on the person driving the vehicle, being negligent, in not taking due care, while compelling the vehicle to run, even though, being in the knowledge about such leakage, would amount to denial of such loss. As the Surveyor had failed to point out these factors, while giving his opinion denying the complainant the complete loss suffered by the vehicle in question, has certainly not based the assessment on scientific knowledge nor was the Surveyor as witness to the running of the vehicle by the complainant being in full knowledge of the damage that had already occurred to the vehicle.

 

11]      In a similar set of circumstances, our Hon’ble State Commission, UT, Chandigarh in FA No.98 of 2014 titled as Webart Softech Vs. ICICI Lombard & etc.,. Decided on 4.2.2014, too has observed that the damage to the engine after the escape of oil due to damage to oil sump deserves to be assessed as an incidental loss and should not be termed as consequential loss, as has been done by the Surveyor in the present case. Therefore, the denial of genuine claim of the complainant to the extent of damaged engine parts, amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party.

        

12]      In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Party is found deficient in rendering proper service to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant is allowed against Opposite Party. The Opposite party is directed as under:-

 

[a] To pay an amount of Rs.34,692/-, spent on the repair of the vehicle by the complainant, as per note appended on Ann.C-4;

 

[b] To pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as consolidated amount of compensation for causing mental agony and harassment on account of deficiency in service;

 

[c] To pay litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.5,000/-

 

         The above said order shall be complied within 45 days of its receipt by the Opposite Party; thereafter, it shall be liable to pay an interest @18% per annum on the amount mentioned in sub-para [a] & [b] above, from the date of filing the complaint till it is paid, apart from paying litigation expenses.

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

 

Announced

10^th December, 2015                                                   Sd/-  

                                                                       

 (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

Om                                                                                                                        

 

 

DISTRICT FORUM – II

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.327 OF 2014

PRESENT:   None   Dated the 10th day of December, 2015

O R D E R                        Vide our detailed order of even date, recorded separately, the complaint has been allowed.                    After compliance, file be consigned to record room.

 

(Priti Malhotra)	(Rajan Dewan)	(Jaswinder Singh Sidhu)
Member	President	Member