Punjab

Sangrur

CC/789/2015

Keshav Nand - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bharti AXA GIC Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Shri S.S.Ratol

02 Jun 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                       

                                                Complaint No.  789

                                                Instituted on:    10.08.2015

                                                Decided on:       02.06.2016

 

Keshav Nand aged about 46 years son of Shri Hari Chand, resident of H.No.1403, Jain Colony, Bhawanigarh, Tehsil and District Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.             Bharti AXA General Insurance Company Limited, First Floor, Ferns Icon, Survey No.28, Dodenekundi Office, Outer Ring Road, Bangalore, through its authorised signatory.

2.             Bharti AXA General Insurance Company Limited, SCO 350-352, 1st Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh through its Regional Manager.

3.             HRBM Automobiles Private Limited, Village Bhindran, Patiala Road, Sangrur through its Managing Director.

 

                                                        ..Opposite parties.

For the complainant  :       Shri SS Ratol, Adv.

For Opp. parties       :       Shri G.S.Shergill, Adv.

 

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Keshav Nand, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that in the month of January, 2015, the complainant obtained the services of OPs number 1 and 2 by getting insured his Nissan sunny car bearing registration number PB-13-AG-0030 for the period from 12.1.2015 to 11.1.2016 through OP number 3, who is the authorised agent of Ops number 1 and 2.  It is further averred in the complaint that the car in question was got insured for Rs.5,72,600/- by paying the requisite premium of Rs.19,184/- under zero debt cab cashless policy.  Further case of the complainant is that on 16.5.2015, the son of the complainant, namely, Sushil Kumar along with his friends Rohit Garg and Sandeep Goyal were going to Pehowa and on returning from Pehowa to Sangrur, when the car reached near Cheeka, suddenly struck with the road side pit and after crossing about one and half kilometer, the car suddenly stopped, the son of the complainant tried to start the car, but all in vain.  Thereafter the car was toed to OP number 3 and on inspection, the OP number 3 told that the engine of the car has been ceased and chamber of the car was damaged due to hit from the bottom and prepared estimate to the tune of Rs.1,66,702/-. The loss of the vehicle was also intimated to OP number 2, who appointed surveyor and the vehicle was got repaired from OP number 3. It is further averred that when the complainant visited OP number 3 for getting delivery of the repaired car, the OP number 3 put off the matter on one pretext or the other and ultimately on 26.6.2015, the son of the complainant received an email from OP umber 3 for getting the delivery of the car and was asked to pay Rs.1,49,302/-. It is further averred that on 27.6.2015, the son of the complainant went to the workshop to get the delivery of the car and shocked to know that the OPs number 1 and 2 passed the claim only for Rs.18,400/- and did not pass the whole claim for the repairs of the vehicle. It is further averred that the remaining claim has been denied on account of negligence of driver of the car, as the engine oil was leaked out, which is not fair on the part of the OPs. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the Ops  number 1 and 2 be directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.1,48,302/- along with interest @ 18% per annum and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply of the complaint filed by Ops number 1 and 2, preliminary objections have been taken up on the grounds that the complaint is false, frivolous, vague and vexatious in nature and the claim amount of Rs.15,739/- has already been paid as assessed by the surveyor, that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts from the Forum, that the complainant has concealed and  suppressed the material facts of the case and the complaint has been filed with malafide intention, that the complaint is devoid of any material particulars and that the complaint should be dismissed with special costs. On merits, it is admitted that the vehicle in question is insured with the OPs and it is further averred that the complainant has concocted a false story regarding stopping of the vehicle. It is further stated that the OPs received the intimation regarding the loss caused to the vehicle from OP number 3 and after getting the information claim number  F0643420 was allotted and the Ops appointed Er. Sanjeev Kumar Verma, IRDA approved surveyor, who inspected the vehicle and found that the loss to the engine was caused due to the sole negligence of the driver of the vehicle as the vehicle was driven after the accident and due to that whole engine oil leaked out which caused further loss to the engine. However, it is stated that the OPs have already paid the claim amount of Rs.15,739/- to the complainant and the remaining allegations of the complainant in the complaint have been denied in toto.

 

3.             In reply filed by OP number 3, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has unnecessarily dragged the OP into uncalled litigation, that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and that the complaint is devoid of any material particulars. On merits, it is admitted that the vehicle is insured with the Op number 1 and 2. It has been averred that on 17.5.2015 the vehicle was brought to the workshop of the OP by the complainant and thereafter the intimation was given to the Ops number 1 and 2 about the loss of the vehicle and estimate of loss to the tune of Rs.1,80,000/- was prepared. It is further stated that the complainant told that if the insurance company shall pay the cost for repair of the engine, then he shall go for new fitment of the injectors and accordingly the complainant talked with the surveyor of insurance company to pay expenses for repair of the engine. It is further averred that thereafter the engine of the car was repaired, but the insurance company did not listen the complainant for payment of engine repair charges on the ground that the loss was caused due to the negligence of the driver of the complainant. It is admitted that the delivery of the car was made to the complainant only after receipt of payment of Rs.1,49,302/- by Op number 3. However, any deficiency in service on the part of the OP number 3 has been denied.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of policy, Ex.C-3 and Ex.C-4 copies of retail invoice, Ex.C-5 and Ex.C-6 copies of receipts, Ex.C-7 copy of acknowledgement, Ex.C-8 and Ex.C-9 affidavits and closed evidence.  On the other hand, the learned counsel for OPs number 1 and 2 has produced Ex.OP-1 copy of terms and conditions, Ex.Op-2 copy of survey report, Ex.OP-3 affidavit of Sanjeev Verma, Ex.OP-4 affidavit of Shivali Sharma and closed evidence.

 

5.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and evidence produced on the file and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

6.             It is an admitted fact between the parties that the vehicle in question was insured with the OPs for Rs.5,72,600/- under the zero debt cab cash less policy for the period from 12.1.2015 to 11.1.2016, as is evident from the copy of the insurance policy, which is on record as Ex.C-2.  It is further an admitted fact that the vehicle in question suddenly struck with the road side pit and after crossing about one and half kilometer the vehicle suddenly stopped and on checking it was found that the chamber of the car was cracked and engine of the vehicle was ceased, intimation of which was given to the OPs number 1 and 2. It is further an admitted fact that the complainant brought the vehicle to the OP number 3 for conducting repairs.  It is an admitted fact that the vehicle was repaired by OP number 3 and charged an amount of Rs.1,66,702/-, out of which an amount of Rs.1,48,302/- was paid by the complainant from his own pocket and the remaining amount was paid by OPs number 1 and 2, insurer to Op number 3.  In the present case, the question which arises for determination is whether the OPs are liable to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.1,48,302/- out of the above said amount.

 

7.             The learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that admittedly on 16.5.2015, the car in question when it was being driven by Sushil Kumar suddenly struck with the road side pit and after lapse of about one and half kilometer, the car was suddenly stopped and when on the next day, the car was brought to the OP number 3 for repairs, then it was found that the engine of the car has been ceased and chamber of the car was damaged due to hit from the bottom of the car and prepared the estimate to the tune of Rs.18,400/- for repairing the chamber and Rs.1,48,302/- for the repair of the engine, but the OPs number 1 and 2 did not pay the amount of Rs.1,48,702/- spent on the repair of the engine on the plea that the company shall not be liable to make any payment in respect of consequential loss, depreciation, wear and tear, mechanical or electrical breakdown, failure or breakages, as the insured is responsible to take all reasonable steps to safe guard the vehicle from any loss of damage and to maintain in efficient condition and company shall have full excess of vehicle or part thereof or any employees of the insured.  The learned counsel for the Ops has further contended that had the driver of the vehicle stopped the car in question when it struck from the bottom, then the loss of engine could have been avoided, as such, the Ops  number 1 and 2 have denied the remaining claim i.e. the amount spent on the repairs of the engine. 

 

8.             After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, we feel that the OPs have illegally repudiated the rightful claim of the complainant, as admittedly the accident took place on 11.00 PM (night) on 16.5.2015 and due to that the car of the complainant suddenly struck with the road site pit and after crossing about one and half kilometer, the car was suddenly stopped and lastly found that the engine of the car has ceased.  It is on the record that the driver of the vehicle was having no knowledge that the chamber of the car has cracked due to struck with the road side pit and engine was ceased due to the leakage of mobil oil from the chamber.  Had the driver of the vehicle known all this, obviously he would have stopped the vehicle at once after struck with the road side pit. But, in the present case,  there seems to be no intention of the driver of the vehicle that he did not stop the vehicle intentionally and allowed  the engine of the vehicle to cease. In the circumstances, the fact remains that the engine of the car in question ceased due to struck of the car with the road side pit and chamber of the vehicle cracked.  Further, we feel that the OPs have intentionally and with malafide intention has repudiated the remaining claim i.e. the amount spent on the repair of the engine even without applying the mind.   We may mention that it is a matter of common knowledge that when a person is driving the vehicle in the night, it is not supposed to see what is happening on the lower part of the car, as happened in the present case.  As such, we are of the considered opinion that the OPs have illegally repudiated the rightful claim of the complainant.

 

9.             Now, coming to the point of quantum of compensation payable to the complainant.  The complainant has claimed an amount of Rs.1,48,302/-, which he had paid to the OP number 3 at the time of getting delivery of the car after accident in question. As such, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant is entitled to get an amount of Rs.1,48,302/-.

 

10.           The insurance companies are in the habit to take these type of projections to save themselves from paying the insurance claim. The insurance companies are only interested in earning the premiums and find ways and means to decline claims. The above said view was taken by the Hon’ble Justice Ranjit Singh of Punjab and Haryana High Court in case titled as New India Assurance Company Limited versus Smt. Usha Yadav and others 2008(3) R.C.R. 9 Civil) 111.

 

11.           Accordingly, in view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OPs number 1 and 2 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.1,48,302/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 10.08.2015 till realisation.  We further order the OPs number 1 and 2 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.20,000/- in lieu of consolidated amount of compensation and further an amount of Rs.5500/- on account of  litigation expenses.

 

12.           This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                June 2, 2016.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                                President

 

 

                                                             (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                  Member

                                                             

                                       

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member