Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/355/2015

M/s NIFD Institute of Fashion Design Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC ERGO Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Rajinder Singh Raj

08 Feb 2016

ORDER

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

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	355 of 2015
Date  of  Institution	:	4.6.2015
Date   of   Decision	:	8.2.2016

 

 

 

 

 

M/s NIFD Institute of fashion design Ltd. SCO NO. 32-35, Sector
8-C,  Chandigarh through its Director Shri Ashok Kaushik.

 

….Complainant

Vs.

 

1. HDFC Ergo  Insurance Company Ltd. regd. & Corporate office: 1^st floor 165-166, Backbay Reclamation H.T. Parekh Marg, Mumbai through its Chief Executive Officer.

 

2. HDFC Ergo Insurance Co. LTd. Unit No. 502, 504, 506, 5^th floor, Mahatta Tower, B-1 Block, Community Centre Janakpuri, New Delhi 110 058 through Rahul Kumar, Claims Officer.

 

3. HDFC Ergo Insurance Co. Ltd. SCO No. 124-125, 1^st floor, above Delta Travels, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh through its agent, Yogesh Sharma.

 

4. Punjab Motors Bhagat Automotive Pvt. Ltd. C-19 Industrial Area Phase I, Mohali Punjab through its Manager.

 

 

…… Opposite Parties 

 

BEFORE:                                         RESIDENT

MRS.SURJEET KAUR                             PRESIDING MEMBER

SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA           MEMBER

 

 

For Complainant	:	Sh. Rajinder Singh  Raj, Advocate
For OP No.1 to 3	:	Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate
For OP No.4.	:	Sh. Harjot Singh Bedi, Advocate

 

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

 

 

 

                The facts, in brief, are that the complainant got insured his Mercedes Benz Car with OPs No.1 to3 valid from 30.5.2014 to 29.5.2015 (midnight).  The nature of policy was bumber to bumber i.e. zero depreciation for which the complainant paid a sum of Rs.67,176/- as premium of the policy.  Unfortunately the said vehicle met with an accident on 3.3.2015 at Narnaul, Haryana.  The complainant lodged claim with OPs No.1 to 3 on 9.3.2015. OPs No.1 to 3 instructed Opposite Party No.4 to carry out the repair and order the parts to be replaced. It has been alleged that the OPs repudiated the claim of the complainant relating to rear shocker and pneumatic spring on the false plea that the damage caused to these parts are not related to the cause of accident reported in the claim form signed by the complainant, whereas, it has been clearly mentioned in the claim form that while trying to avoid the accident, the complainant had to take a sharp turn on the right hand and in the process the rear wheels of the vehicle fell down in the deep pothole on the road and consequently resulted in damages to the vehicle. It has been averred that since the policy obtained by the complainant was from bumper to bumper with zero depreciation, therefore, the complainant is entitled to claim the payment of replacing shock absorber and pneumatic spring even if these were not damaged in the accident, from the OPs.   The complainant visited the OPs time and again for settlement of his claim. When all his strenuous efforts went in vain he sent a legal notice to them but to no avail. Pleading the aforesaid act of the Opposite Parties deficiency in rendering service the complainant has filed the instant complaint.   

         

2.                 Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite  Parties, seeking their version of the case.

 

3.                 Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 in their joint reply stated that the claim of the complainant was repudiated relating to rear shocker and pneumatic spring as the damage to the said parts were found unrelated to the cause of accident reported in the claim form.  During the survey of the loss as per information and statement furnished by the complainant it was found that left side of the vehicle had got damaged by Bolero jeep and the same was approved but the damage to the rear shocker and pneumatic spring was not  related to cause of loss.  The surveyor found that there was no external impact on the shocker and no impact mark were seen on it. The damage to the shocker was due to normal wear and tear. It has been averred that as per condition NO.1 of the policy it covers damage to the vehicle due to accidental external means. However, in the instant case no damage to the spring and shock absorber was caused due to external means. The OPs had already honoured the admissible loss but  the loss, which had not been caused due to accident cannot be brought under the purview of insurance. Thus, the claim of the complainant to this extent was rightly repudiated. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, Opposite Parties No. 1 to 3  have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4.           Opposite Party No.4 in its reply stated that the complaint is liable to be dismissed against it as the complainant failed to disclose in his complaint the cause of action accrued to him against the answering Opposite Party.  Even otherwise the main grouse of the complainant is regarding repudiating of the claim to which the answering Opposite Party has no role to play. Rest of the allegation leveled against the answering Opposite Party in the complaint has been denied being wrong.

5.          Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record, in support of their contentions.

 

6.          We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record, carefully.

 

7.          A perusal of the record reveals that the claim of the complainant relating to rear shocker and pneumatic spring was repudiated by the Opposite Party NO.1 to 3 on the ground that during the survey of the loss and as per the information and statement furnished by the complainant it was found that the left side of the vehicle had got damaged by Bolero jeep and the same was approved, but the damage to the rear shocker and pneumatic spring does not commensurate with cause of loss and as per surveyor  there was no external impact on the shocker and no impact mark were seen on it.  The damage to the shocker was due to normal wear and tear and as such the claim of the complainant to this effect was rightly repudiated. We agree with the contention of the OPs No. 1 to 3  for the reasons recorded hereinafter. A perusal of survey report (at page 27) reveals that the surveyor after verifying the loss to the vehicle assessed the net payable amount to the tune of Rs.83,464/- and also observed that  “ I chek the shocker minutely and found no external impact on it there was no impact mark around shocker, which was due to wear and tear at parts hence the same could not allowed”.  As per terms and condition of the policy (at page 29) the company shall not be liable to make any payment in respect of consequential loss, depreciation, wear and tear mechanical or electrical breakdown failures or breakages;”. It is evident from the report of the surveyor that no external impact was found on the shocker and it was a normal wear and tear. Surveyor report being an important document cannot be brushed aside until and unless any cogent evidence contrary to the same is produced on record. In the instant case no such evidence has been produced on record by the complainant. In Suryachem Industries Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, I (2007) CPJ 278 (NC), it was held, that the report of the surveyor, could only be successfully challenged, by producing tangible, evidence, by the complainant.  As stated above in the instant case the complainant utterly failed to do so. Hence claim made by the complainant regarding rear shocker and pneumatic spring is not payable by the insurance company.

8.          For the reasons recorded above, the complaint deserves to be dismissed being having no merit. Accordingly the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.  

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

 

Announced

8.2.2016                             

 (P.L. AHUJA)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

 (SURJEET KAUR)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

Sd/-

 (SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER