BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH ======== Consumer Complaint No | : | 586 of 2010 | Date of Institution | : | 23.09.2010 | Date of Decision | : | 02.05.2011 |
1. M/s Aggarwal and Sons # 3024, Sector 28-D, Chandigarh through its M.D. 2. Mr.Rajnish Aggarwal, Partner M/s Aggarwal and Sons # 3024, Sector 28-D, Chandigarh ….…Complainants V E R S U S Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., SCO No.58, Sector 26-C, Chandigarh. ..…Opposite Party CORAM: SH.P.D.GOEL, PRESIDENT SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL, MEMBER DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA MEMBER Argued by:Sh. Upender Prasher, Adv. for complainant. Sh.Sukhdarshan Singh, Adv. for OP --- PER P.D.GOEL, PRESIDENT The complainants have filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (as amended upto date) “hereinafter referred to as the Act”. In short, the facts of the case are that the complainant is owner of JCB Machine bearing registration No.HR-68/8263 which was insured under insurance policy No.353300/31/07/01/ 00002639 for the period from 24.03.08 to 25.03.2009. The said policy covered all accidental benefits. It is averred that on 16.9.08 at 5.30 p.m, the said machine got damaged accidentally during operations while being driven by Sh.Mohan Lal who was holding a valid driving licence. The complainants intimated OP on 16.09.08 and also wrote letter dated 17.09.08 intimating the damage and requested to depute the surveyor to assess the damages. It is the case of the complainants that the surveyor assessed the damages. As per the complainants, vide letter dated 12.11.2008 (Annexure C-8), the OPs repudiated the claim, stating therein, that the loss to the machine occurred due to mechanical breakdown, which is not covered under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, whereas the damage to the machine was due to accident and it was not a mechanical breakdown. The repudiation is stated to be illegal, hence this complaint. 2. OP filed their written statement taking some preliminary objections and denying the averments of the complaint made in the complaint. On merits, it is replied that the JCB machine in question stopped working all of a sudden due to mechanical breakdown on 16.09.08 at 5.30 a.m. The complainant had wrongly tried to convert the mechanical breakdown into accident in order to get monetary benefit by getting the bogus claim whereas no accident took place. However, it is pleaded that after going through the surveyor report and the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the claim of the complaint was repudiated on the ground that the damage to the machine was due to mechanical breakdown and not due to any accident. Denying all the material allegations of the complainant and pleading that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. 3. Parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 5. In the repudiation letter dated 12.11.08 (Annexure C-8), it has been stated that the said loss to the machine is due to mechanical breakdown which is not covered under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. 6. Now it is upon the OP to prove that the loss to the machine is due to mechanical breakdown which is not covered under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. To prove the said fact, the OP has produced on record the report of the surveyor-Sh.Ravinder K. Goyal dated 15.10.08. In support of the said report, the OP has also placed the affidavit of the surveyor wherein he has specifically stated that he was deputed by OP to assess the loss to the JCB Machine which allegedly met with an accident on 16.9.08. He has further deposed that he inspected the machine and submitted the report dated 15.10.08. It was found that the loss to the machine was due to mechanical breakdown and not due to any accident and as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the loss on account of mechanical breakdown was not covered. 7. Admittedly, the complainant has not produced any other evidence on the record to rebut the said report of the surveyor. The complainant has also not produced any evidence to prove that the loss to the machine was due to accident and it was not due to mechanical breakdown. The report of the surveyor which is supported by the affidavit has gone unrebutted. So it is held that the complainant has failed to prove that the loss to the said machine had occurred due to accident. Consequently, it is held that the repudiation of the claim by OP is legal. 8. As a result of the above discussion, finding the complaint to be devoid of any merit, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. 9. The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned. | Sd/- | | Sd/- | Sd/- | 02.05.2011 | [ Madanjit Kaur Sahota] | | [Rajinder Singh Gill] | (P.D.Goel) | Cm | Member | | Member | President |
| | MR. RAJINDER SINGH GILL, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. P. D. Goel, PRESIDENT | DR. MRS MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA, MEMBER | | 
