Delhi

New Delhi

CC/1078/2007

Mudra Electronics Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

03 Mar 2015

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTT. NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR,

VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC/1078/07                                                                                                                                                                             Dated:

In the matter of:

M/s. Mudra Electronics Ltd.,

LG-4, 5, 6 & 7,

Somdutt Chambers-II, 9, Bhikaji Cama Palace,

New Delhi-110066

……..COMPLAINANT

       

VERSUS

 

M/s. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

GE Plaza, Airport Road, Yerwada, Pune-411006

Also at:

M/s. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

C-31/32, 1^st fl, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001

                                         ………. OPPOSITE PARTY

 

ORDER

Member: Ritu Garodia

 

The Complainant being a Director had taken an insurance coverage vides policy no.OG-07-1105-1801-00002339 for his SKODA car bearing no.DL9C-G-0866 as per Exh.C1 with IDV value Rs.6 lakhs. Unfortunately the vehicle in question while going to Faridabad and due to heavy rain and water logging the said vehicle stopped and it was towed to M/s. Silverstone Motors for repair immediately and intimation was given to OP vide claim no.1714935 but OP repudiated the claim as it does not fall under the policy. Ultimately complainant requested service station to open the engine and got it rectified. Complainant remained persuading OP to pay the claim via various emails annexed with complaints but OP failed to settle the claim. The Complainant paid Rs.1,42,319/- to M/s. Silverstone Motors Pvt. Ltd. from his own pocket vide demand draft dated 13.07.07 to get its vehicle repaired and released. The bills and demand draft are annexed in the record file. Ultimately complainant was filed after submitting mail as per Exh.C2 & C3 despite comprehensive insurance coverage as per OP letter C4 & C5 already placed with complaint.

While going through W.S & evidence Para4 of OP, it reveals that claim was not intimated immediately i.e. 21.06.07 after lapse of 4 days. Surveyor was appointed and inspection was conducted on 23.06.07, 30.06.07, 03.07.06 and 04.07.07 as per surveyor report. According to the said report, the engine was neither submerged fully or partially. Consequently, it was a mechanical failure and does not fall within the policy terms and conditions whereas the meaning of comprehensive insurance coverage reveals to cover entire coverage of vehicle in question and not partial coverage.       Perusal of surveyor report indicates that the damaged vehicle was inspected at M/s. Silverstone Motors. The interiors of vehicle was inspected on 23.06.07 which was found to be dry and there was no water in the engine oil, however engine could not be inspected as necessary tools were lacking for dismantling of engine. The examination of dismantled engine was made finally on 03.07.07 and no trace of water was found in engine block. Nevertheless, job sheet by M/s. Silverstone Motors dated 18.06.07, annexed with the complaint mentions “Running repair job water gone inside the engine”.

Letter dated 13.07.07 by the repair shop reveals that water was found inside the engine and as result the connecting rods and pistons become defective. The surveyor inspect the vehicle at M/s. Silverstone Motors which categorically states that water was found inside the engine along with bill and came to conclusion that there was no water in the engine and consequently the car stopped due to some unidentified mechanical failure. The surveyor has neither given any reason for this conclusion nor elaborated on the unidentified mechanical failure.

It is noticed that OP arbitrarily denied the claim taking a shelter of mechanical defects of engine to save his skin. This practices is prevailing with hundred and hundreds of consumers who are sufferer the owner of BMW, Mercedes, Skoda in the market who have been deprived from genuine claim which is unethical unlawful and breach of contract of comprehensive insurance on the part of OP who knowingly issued coverage of insurance to befool consumer. It is a clear case of deficiency/breach of contract and wrong policy adopted by OPs to sell policy which are not meant for Indian market. BMW, Mercedes, Skoda cars are meant for foreign countries, why it is marketed in India when it is not fit for Indian market. If it is not roadworthy for in India, then why the insurance coverage is being issued to vehicles, and being called comprehensive insurance which shows that OP insurance knowingly sold policy to extract money from innocent consumers and dragged him into litigation to spend such heavy amount on vehicles under false temptation.

Thus Secretary Transport Govt. of India and Chairman, IRDA is directed to issue circulars as not to issue insurance coverage for Skoda, BMW, Mercedes for Indian market because these vehicles are not fit for Indian market as lakhs of people are being harassed by insurance companies. Copy of order be sent to Transport Minister Govt. of India.

Holding OP guilty, we direct OP to pay Rs.1,42,319/- along with 9% interest from the date of claim till realization. We also award Rs.75,000/- as harassment & litigation expenses.

The order shall be complied within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the order; otherwise action can be taken against OP under Section 25 / 27 of the Consumer Protection Act.

File be consigned to record room.

Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost.

 

 

        Pronounced in open Court on 03.03.2015.

 

 

                   

(C.K.CHATURVEDI)

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

(S.R. CHAUDHARY)                 (Ritu garodia)

MEMBER                                  MEMBER