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

========

H.K. Pathak, r/o # 3548, Sector 23-D, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

                           V E R S U S

1.  ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., SCO No. 111-113, Batra Building, Second Floor, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh through its Manager

2.  Dynamic Motors, Plot No. 5, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh.

                                  ……Opposite Parties

CORAM: SH.ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI                    PRESIDING MEMBER

                SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL                    MEMBER

                DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA       MEMBER

Argued by: Sh. Dalip Kataria, Adv. for complainant.

Sh. Sh.Sandeep Suri, Adv. for OP No.1.

Sh. Sandeep Jasuja, for OP No.2.

PER SHRI DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA, MEMBER

              Succinctly put, the complainant got his vehicle no.CH-03-X-2507 insured from OP-2 for the period from 10.09.2008 to 9.09.2009 vide policy no. 3001/54921235/00/000. On 11.05.2009 a stone hit the radiator of the car and the radiator got damaged and started leaking.  He informed the same to OP-2 and a crane was sent by OP-2 to tow the vehicle to their garage. On 12.05.2009 the incident was reported to OP-1 after which OP-1 sent his surveyor at the spot and the complainant was also called there.  After survey of the damaged part, the surveyor told the complainant to get the vehicle repaired from OP-2 and thereafter to lodge the claim of the repair with OP-1. The OP-2 repaired the vehicle of the complainant and raised a bill of Rs.66,585/-. On lodging the claim to OP-1, the OP-1 repudiated the claim on the ground that the vehicle was driven after being hit by the stone and there was a consequential loss and the same was not payable. The claim was repudiated by OP-1 on baseless grounds. Hence this complaint alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

2.             Notice was served to the OPs. In their written reply OP-1 submitted that no claim qua any such accident was made and also, if the claim of the complainant that stone had hit the car was accepted as correct, then also the complainant had not taken adequate care and had used the vehicle after the spillage of coolant.  No further loss would have caused, if he had taken adequate care after the stone had hit the radiator, hence it is a consequential loss. No information had been given to OP-1, if any survey was conducted on the said date. The reasons mentioned in the complaint as ground of repudiation are incorrect. Denying all the material allegations of the complainant, the OP-1 pleaded that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

3.             In their written reply the OP-2 submitted that the complainant had no cause of action against them as the vehicle was insured with OP-1.  They had only received the information from the complainant that his vehicle had broken down, and a request was made to repair the vehicle and after inspection by their team, they came to know that due to continuous driving of the vehicle, after leakage of coolant from the radiator had further damaged the vehicle, which could only be repaired at the workshop and consequently the vehicle was towed to the workshop and was repaired with the consent of the complainant for which a bill of Rs.66,585/- was rightly raised.  As per their knowledge, the claim was repudiated by OP-1 and the said view was endorsed by the Ombudsman who had heard the complainant and the reply of the OP-1 and held OP-1 responsible to pay damage of the claim of stone hitting the radiator and not the damage, which was caused due to consequence of the said damage.  It was also submitted that even before Insurance Ombudsman, the complainant requested for summoning of the OP-2 and OP-2 had no role to play in the settlement of the claim, which shows that the complainant had unnecessarily impleaded OP-2 in the present complaint.  The complainant had not leveled any allegation against them. They have no authority to settle or repudiate the claim of a party. The complainant had failed to prove in the complaint proceedings that he had ever approached the OP-2 for redressal of his grievance. Hence OP-2 prayed for dismissal of the complaint against them.

4.             The Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5.             We have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 

6.             Annexure C-1 is the copy of the insurance policy which shows that the car in question was duly insured with Insurance Company-OP No.1 for the period from 10.09.2008 to 09.09.2009. The contention of the Learned Counsel for the complainant is that while the complainant was driving the car in question, it suddenly stopped at Sector 37, Chandigarh and when it did not start, he informed to Dynamic Motors – OP No.2, who towed the car to their workshop for repairs and raised a bill of Rs.66,585/- towards its total repair. He also contended that complainant had informed the Insurance Company-OP No.1 about the incident on the very next day i.e. on 12.5.2009, in response to which their Surveyor visited the spot and allowed the repairs but inspite of all that the Insurance Company-OP No.1 illegally repudiated the claim. While the Learned Counsel for Insurance Company-OP No.1 vehemently denied the contentions of complainant and argued that, the complainant never informed the Insurance Company about any such incident, as such neither any Surveyor was ever appointed nor was any damage assessed.  He also argued that even if the story of complainant is accepted, then also the loss/damage itself reveals that the complainant had not taken adequate care & caution while driving the vehicle and had used it even after the leakage of coolant from the radiator of the car.

7.             In order to come to the conclusion of the case the following information was to be provided by the complainant:-

1.  The complainant was to prove/show that as to when and through which mode he informed the Insurance Company-OP No.1 about the said incident?

2.  Who was the Surveyor, alleged to have visited the spot and with whose permission, he permitted him to carry out the repairs?

3.   When he filed the claim with OP-1 and vide which mode/letter the said claim was repudiated by the Opposite Party-1?

              The complainant has failed to produce the above necessary information till date. Since these are the bald allegations, as such the same cannot be taken into consideration.

8.             As per the document on record in the file, the matter has also gone to the Insurance Ombudsman, Chandigarh and the said Ombudsman had given his award on 29^th June, 2009 (Annexure C-2). Even in the Ombudsman award it was stated that the vehicle in question will be surveyed once again to assess if there was an external damage either to the radiator or to any other part which could have caused consequential damage if at all.  There is no document on record showing that the complainant had ever approached OP-1 for the appointment of the surveyor or for settlement of the insurance claim by any other means, which clearly proves that the complainant has not taken any interest in getting the insurance claim settled by OP-1.

9.     Moreover, even if, for a while, the story of the complainant is accepted as correct, the same appears to be doubtful.  The complainant contended that he could not notice the leakage from the radiator due to the hitting of stone and he came to know about this only when the car suddenly stopped.  In our view every car is fitted with temperature indicator/meter which shows the warning indicator, if the level of the coolant is decreased in the radiator by any means.  Had the complainant been vigilant and careful enough and noticed the said warning indicator while driving the car, the consequential loss could have been avoided. So, the story put forth by the complainant appears to be concocted with as an after thought.  In this way we are of the opinion that the complainant has tried to misled this Forum by filing baseless complaint.  

10.           In view of the above discussion and findings, we are of the considered opinion that there is no merit, weight or substance in this complaint and the same is accordingly dismissed. However the parties shall bear their own cost. 

              Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  Thereafter  file be consigned to records.