Haryana

StateCommission

A/510/2016

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

DEEPAK KHULLAR - Opp.Party(s)

NITIN GUPTA

11 Jul 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                               First Appeal No.510 of 2016

                                                          Date of Institution: 06.06.2016

                                                               Date of Decision: 11.07.2016

 

1. National Insurance Company Limited Branch Office, LIC Building, Second Floor, Ambala City, through its Branch Manager.
2. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, 106, Railway Road, Ambala Cantt.

Both the appellants now represented through the duly authorized signatory of regional office, National Insurance Company Limited SCO No.332-334, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh.

…..Appellants

Versus

 

Deepak Khullar s/o Shri Tilak Raj Khullar r/o H.No.1035/12, Milap Nagar, Ambala City.

                                      …..Respondent

 

CORAM:             Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.

                             Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                                                                                                                        

Present:              Shri.Nitin Gupta, Advocate counsel for appellant.

                            

 

                                                   O R D E R

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

                   It was alleged by the complainant that on 18.12.2008 when he was going from Chandigarh to Ambala, something like stone hit the bottom of his car. He stopped the car and gave information to Maruti 24 hours service immediately. Officer on duty asked him to wait at the spot for half an hour. When nobody came to spot, he again contacted Maruti 24 hours service and was told that no person was available to attend the problem. After waiting for half an hour he called his friend and toed car to his residence. On 19.12.2008 he went to Modern Auto Mobiles Ambala City and told about information given to 24 hours service on 18.12.2008. Modern Auto Mobiles, Ambala City contacted insurance company and he was told that survey of vehicle was not possible at residence and he should bring the car to the garage. During checking, it was found that oil was leaking from intercooler hose pipe and some parts were damaged. After opening engine some other parts were also found damaged.  Modern Auto Mobiles   assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.64690/-. Regarding loss it was told by Modern Auto Mobiles to the surveyor that the same could be caused within 20 seconds, 50 seconds, 2 minutes, 5 minutes or within 10 minutes due to non-lubrication of engine. Modern Auto Mobiles repaired his car and charged Rs.53993/-. He asked to settle the claim for this amount but insurance company was ready to pay Rs.1821/- only. Hence the complaint.

2.                         Appellants/ Opposite parties (in short O.Ps.) alleged that due to bottom hit parts worth Rs.1821/- were damaged and the same was allowed. Despite leakage of oil, complainant drove car due to which parts of the engine were damaged. He was not entitled for the compensation of those parts which were damaged due to driving of car after leakage of oil after bottom hit.   Objections about maintainability, accruing cause of action and suppressing material facts etc. were raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.

3.                         After hearing both the parties, learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal, Forum, Ambala (in short “District Forum”) allowed the complaint vide order dated 12.04.2016 and directed as under:-

“(i) To release to the complainant a sum of Rs.53993/- alongwith simple interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of institution of complaint to till date after making statutory deductions, if any, as per compulsorily deductible clause as per terms of insurance policy

(ii)  To pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation on account of harassment & Mental agony.

(iii)     And to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- on account of litigation charges including the counsel’s fee”.

 

4.                Feeling aggrieved therefrom, O.Ps. have preferred this appeal.

5.                Arguments heard. File perused.

6.                It is urged by appellants that from the perusal of Annexure-A3 it is clear that the complainant stopped his car after 3 to 5 minutes after bottom hit, whereas he should have stopped the same there and then. Due to leakage of oil further damage was caused to the engine and he is not entitled for the same. Complainant can ask for compensation for those parts which were damaged due to bottom hit. As per clause No.4 of the terms and condition of the insurance policy he should have taken proper care of the car and should have stopped the same there and then. Learned District Forum failed to take into consideration this aspect, so impugned order cannot be sustained. 

7.                          This argument cannot help the appellants. Though in instrument panel i.e. copy of information about oil pressure light, it is mentioned that if oil pressure is low then light will start blinking, but, there is no evidence on the file showing that when something hit bottom of car, light started blinking and complainant went on driving the same. In Annexure-A2, it is mentioned that due to leakage of oil there was lack of lubrication and engine was damaged, but, it is nowhere mentioned that light was blinking. Even surveyor has not mentioned in his report that at the time of survey light was blinking on the panel. He has only mentioned about the mechanism when there is shortage of oil. This is a question of fact and was to be proved with evidence that insured drove the vehicle even after indication given by light. When this fact is missing insurance company cannot allege that compensation cannot be granted to complainant about further damage, caused to the engine. Even otherwise, in normal routine, it is seen that pebbles lie on the road and they hit vehicle time and again. If there is little bit noise, it is not expected that a person will stop vehicle at every moment to see whether there is damage or not. If such like response is expected then it will be difficult to reach destination. Normally, nobody will like to cause further damage to one’s vehicle, because if engine is opened then it’s life will decrease. There is no evidence on the file showing that there was any negligence on the part of the complainant and due to the same further damage was caused. Had it been proved then it would have been a different matter. Report submitted by the surveyor is based on assumption and not on evidence.  Learned District Forum has taken into consideration each and every aspect from every angle and has rightly granted the compensation, as mentioned above because the complainant paid the same for the repair of his car. Resultantly, the appeal is hereby dismissed in limine.

8.                          The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/-  deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.

 

July 11th, 2016           Urvashi Agnihotri                                R.K.Bishnoi,                                                               Member                                              Judicial Member                                                         Addl. Bench                                        Addl.Bench                

S.K.