Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Limited, SCO No.14, 4th Floor, Urban Estate, Sector 5, Panchkula, through its Managing Director now through Navjeet Singh, Senior Executive Legal..

Alternative address^:-

SCO No. 329, 1st Floor, Sector 9, Panchkula, through its Branch Manager.

……Appellant/Opposite Party No.3….

V e r s u s

1. M/s Pioneer Electronics, SCO No.319, Sector 35-B,Chandigarh, through its Managing Partner Shri G.S.Respondent /complainant

2.KrishnaChandigarh, through its Manager.

Respondent /Opposite Party No.1

(3)  D.L.F.CyberCity, Phase-2, Building No.8, Tower-B, 7th Floor, Gurgaon – 1222002 Haryana, through its Managing Director.

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:  

Argued by:

PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT

1.             

“In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Party No.3 is found deficient in rendering proper service to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Party No.3, and the same is allowed, qua it. The Opposite Party No.3 is directed to:-

[a]  

[b]   

[c]

2.             Chandigarh. The engine of the car stopped working due to splashing of water by another speeding vehicle coming from the opposite direction. The vehicle was towed to the Workshop of Opposite Party No.1 for repairs, which raised a bill of Rs.2,26,166/- dated 16.2.2013. It was stated that a claim was lodged with Opposite Party No.3, which reduced the same vide letter dated 2.3.2013, on the ground that in the absence of any damage to the external body of the vehicle, the engine parts and other components could not be believed to have been damaged by coming into contact with water. It was further stated that the complainant thereafter requested Opposite Party No.3 to reconsider its claim vide letter dated 15.3.2013. A legal notice was also got served upon the Opposite Parties, which was duly replied to by Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, raising baseless issues. It was further stated that Opposite Party No.3 reduced the claim to Rs.40,028/- from Rs.2,26,166/-, the amount which was paid by the complainant, for repair. Cheque of the amount of Rs.40,028/- was sent by Opposite Party No.3, which was not encashed by the complainant. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed,

3.             -lock occurs when a volume of liquid greater than the volume of the cylinder at its minimum (end of the piston stroke) enters the cylinder. Since most common liquids are uncompressible, the piston could not complete its travel hence either the engine must stop rotating or a mechanical failure must occur. It was further stated that the car was repaired to the satisfaction of the complainant and was delivered on 16.02.2013. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of Opposite Party No.1 nor it indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

4.             , 

5.       Opposite Party No.3, was duly served, but no authorized representative, put in appearance on its behalf, as a result whereof, it was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 25.11.2013.

6.             

7.              

8.             

9.              

10.           

11.             

12.           direction, splashed rain water on its body. This assertion was also duly corroborated by Gurinder Singh Bhasin, Managing Partner of the complainant, in his affidavit, submitted by way of evidence. In the claim form copy whereof is Annexure R-1 it was stated by Mr. Gurinder Singh Bhasin, aforesaid, that he was going towards the Railway Station to pick up his relatives, when near the under-bridge a truck coming from the opposite side splashed a lot of water, on his car, and it got stuck in middle of the road. The engine stopped working. It was further stated that he immediately called Opposite Party No.1 and the car was towed to the Service Centre. There is no evidence, on record, to the effect, that when the car stuck   Moreover, no evidence was produced by the Opposite Parties, to the contrary.   

13.         The District Forum was, thus, right in holding that it was not a consequential loss. The District Forum was also right in holding that such a loss fell within the accidental clause of the Insurance Policy. The District Forum was also right in holding that Opposite Party No.3 was not justified, in reducing the claim of the complainant from 2,26,166/-, the amount paid by it for repair of the car to Rs.40,028/-. Thus the order of the District Forum, being legal and valid warrants no interference of this Commission.14.            No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the appellant.

12.        

13.        

14.        

15.        

Pronounced.

2.7.2014

sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

[DEV RAJ]

MEMBER

Sd/-

PADMA PANDEY

MEMBER