Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/328/2013

Anita Devi W/o Raj Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Divisional Manager,The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Subhash Chand

10 Aug 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA   NAGAR.

 

                                                               Complaint No. 328 of 2013.

                                                               Date of institution: 03.05.2013

                                                               Date of decision: .10.08.2017.

 

 

Anita Devi, aged about 66 wife of Shri Raj Kumar resident of House No.1419, Sector 17 HUDA, Jagadhri, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                                               …Complainant.

                                   Versus

1. Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Jagadhri, Opposite Madhu Hotel Jagadhri Road, Yamuna Nagar.

 

2. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. having its Registered and Head Office at Oriental House, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi through its MD/Chairman/Authorized Signatory.

 

….Respondents.

 

 

BEFORE     SH. DHARAMPAL, PRESIDENT

                    SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

                    SMT. VEENA RANI SHEOKAND, MEMBER.    

 

 

Present:       Sh. Subhash Chand, Advocate, for complainant.   

                   Shri VK Sharma, Advocate for OPs

 

 

ORDER (DHARAM PAL, PRESIDENT)

 

 

1.                The complainant Anita Devi has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 as amended up to date (hereinafter respondents will be referred as OPs). 

2.                Brief facts of the complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are on dated 11.11.2012 when the son of the complainant namely Mukesh Kumar was returning from the factory to his house, a stone struck against the chamber below the car and the oil stated leaking and the son of the complainant parked the car at the spot and informed the OP no.1 about the same. OP No.1 deputed a surveyor at the spot to assess the loss/damage occurred to the said car and asked the complainant to get repair the said car with the assurance that the payment of repair will be made to the complainant at the earliest. The complainant got her car repaired from Metro Motors Jagadhri and has spent an amount of Rs.1,24,740.28/- as per bill dated 03.01.2013 and bill dated 19.02.2013 for Rs.52,170/- and thereafter the complainant approached to the office of OP No.1 and handed over the copies of bills and other relevant documents and requested them to pay the claim and the official of the OPs assured to make the payment of claim of the complainant at the earliest. Thereafter complainant repeatedly visited to the OP No.1 for getting the claim but the OP postponed the matter on one pretext or the other and the complainant was astonished the see that the OPs have passed the claim only for Rs.831/- vide their letter dated 15.03..2013, whereas the complainant has spend an amount of Rs.1,24,740.28/-  as per bill dated 03.01.2013 and the bill dated 19.02.2013 for Rs.52,170/-  and the complainant is entitled to Rs.1,76,910.28/- along with interest from the date of occurrence till realization. Hence, this complaint.

3.                Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed their written statement jointly taking some preliminary objections such as complaint against the answering OP is not maintainable; It has been mentioned by complainant herself in claim form and Para 4 of the complainant that the road was broken at many places a boulder lying on the road hit the bottom of the car and oil Pan was punctured and the oil got leaked and as such the damage of the car was only the oil pan and for that the OPs company got the loss assessed to the tune of Rs.831/- as per survey report dated 28.02.2013 (Annexure R-1). Complainant was intimated of this vide registered letter dated 04.04.2013, regd. Reminder dated 03.05.2013 and Final Reminder dated 03.09.2013 requesting to return the discharge voucher duly signed. The copies of the letter are Annexure R2 to R4. The alleged loss of Turbo compressor/Turbo charger and half engine assembly cannot be allowed as the alleged damage cannot be caused without starting/moving the vehicle after accident, which clearly shows the negligence and carelessness on the part of the complainant and the answering OPs are not at all liable for that and on merit rest contents were controverted and reiterated the stand taken in the preliminary objections and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                In support of his case, learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CX and documents such as photocopy of insurance as Annexure C1, photocopy of bill issued by Metro Motor as Annexure C2, photocopy of bill issued by Metro Motor as Annexure C3, letter to Smt. Anita Devi dated 15.03.2013 as Annexure C4 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.                On the other learned counsel for the OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Shri Gurmej Singh, Deputy Manager as Annexure RA, another affidavit of Shri Sudhir Dhingra, Surveyor and Loss Assessor as Annexure RB, photocopy of letter to Smt. Anita Devi as annexure R-1, photocopy of Reminder of letter to Smt. Anita Devi as Annexure R-2, photocopy of Final notice dated 03.09.2013 to Smt. Anita Devi as Annexure R-3, photocopy of Motor (Final) Survey Report as Annexure R-4, photocopy of insurance policy as Annexure R-5, photocopy of private car package policy as Annexure R-6, photocopy of motor claim form as Annexure R-7, print out of photograph as Annexure R-8 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.

6.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record available on the file.

7.                Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that when son of the complainant was returning from the factory towards his house, a stone struck against the chamber below the car and oil started leaking and son of the complainant parked the car at the spot and informed the OP no.1 the same day. Complainant got her car repaired from Metro Motors Jagadhri and spent Rs.124740.28/- and Rs.52170/- as per bills dated 03.01.2013 and 19.02.2013 and handed over the copies of bills and other documents to OPs for payment of claim but they have passed the claim only for Rs.831/- vide letter dated 15.03.2013 which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the pat of the OPs. Learned counsel for the complainant also referred the case law titled as “Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M/s Pioneer Electronics and others”, 2014(3), CLT 415 (State Commission, UT Chandigarh) wherein it has been held that

Engine seized during heavy rain in the water-There is no attempt to start the vehicle – claim could not be denied by the Insurance Company (Para 12).

Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Section2(1)(g) – Insurance Claim (Car)- Car stopped in the mid of water logged road, while it was raining – The engine of the car stopped working due to splashing of water by another speeding vehicle coming from the opposite direction – Insurance claim repudiated- Held- Engine is seized all of a sudden in the mid of the road, in the water, while it is raining and there is no attempt, on the part of the driver to start the vehicle, the damage to the engine cannot be said to b e a consequential damage, due to the negligence of the driver, and, as such the claim could be denied by the insurance Company (Para 12).

8.                Learned counsel for the OPs on the other hand has argued that the road was broken at many places and a boulder lying on the road hit the bottom of the car and oil pan was punctured and the oil leaked and as such the damage of the car was only of oil pan and for that the OPs company got the loss assessed to the tune of Rs.831/- as per survey report dated 28.02.2013. But instead of accepting the said loss the complainant filed the present complaint. Learned counsel for the OPs referred the case law titled as “Ankur Surana Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and others, 2013(1) CLT, 664, (NC), wherein it has been held that “Insurance Claim- Surveyor report- The report of the surveyor appointed by the insurance company is an important document and the same should not be rejected by the Fora below unless cogent reasons are recorded for doing so”.

9.                The case law referred by the counsel for the complainant is not disputed but not helpful in the present case. Whereas case titled as ““Ankur Surana Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and others, 2013(1) CLT, 664, (NC), (Supra)  referred by the counsel for the Ops is fully applicable to the facts of the present case.

10.               Resultantly, in the circumstances noted above, we are of the considered view that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs as the complainant has failed to explain the damage caused to the vehicle except the oil pan where as per the complainant the vehicle was parked at the spot and they have rightly decided to pay the amount of Rs.831/- on the basis of Surveyor report. Hence, the present complaint is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost.  However, OPs are directed to pay Rs.831/- as assessed by the Surveyor and admitted by the OPs to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order. Copies of this order be supplied to the parties concerned as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court.10.08.2017

 

                                                     (DHARAMPAL)

                                                     PRESIDENT

                                                     D.C.D.R.F.YAMUNA NAGAR

                                                     AT JAGADHRI

 

(VEENA RANI SHEOKAND)          (S.C.SHARMA)

 MEMBER                                          MEMBER

 

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

 

                                                     (DHARAMPAL)

                                                     PRESIDENT

                                                     D.C.D.R.F.YAMUNA NAGAR

                                                     AT JAGADHRI