Delhi

North East

CC/303/2014

R.J. Trade Wings Pvt. Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

29 Mar 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: (NE)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR,

NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No.303/14

 

In the matter of:

 

		M/s R.J. Trade Wings Pvt. Ltd. Through its Director Sh. R.J. Agarwal K-43,  Opposite Plaza Cinema, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001.		Complainant
		Versus
		Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Through its Director, 60, Janpath, New Delhi-110001.			Opposite Party
			DATE OF INSTITUTION:			12.08.2014
			DATE OF DECISION      :			29.03.2016

 

N.K. Sharma, President:-

Nishat Ahmad Alvi, Member:-

Ms. Manju Bala Sharma, Member

 

Order

1.           The facts of the complaint in hand in brief are that the complainant is the owner of Mercedes Benz car bearing registration No.DL06CM1190 insured with OP company vide insurance policy No.214303/31/2013/7680 for the period 05.03.2013 to 04.03.2014 for value of Rs.27,00,000/- covering loss by flood, typhoon, hurricane, storm, tempest, inundation, cyclone, hailstorm and frost.  It is further stated that on 09.07.2013 at about 1930 hours the above-said car ran into inundated rain water due to which engine of the car stopped.  As inundated water had entered the exhaust and engine of the car, the car was locked after pushing the same towards the dried portion of the road.  Next morning with the help of roadside helpline the car was towed away to T & T Motor Workshop in Okhla in flat bed truck and T & T Motor Workshop gave an estimate of Rs.19,50,553/-.  On 11.07.2013 the complainant reported the matter to OP company at toll free number and formal claim was lodged.  On 15.07.2013 the surveyor of OP company visited the workshop and complainant submitted all the papers to the surveyor after his signatures.  The OP did not make payment of the claim despite surveyor of the OP having assessed the loss @ Rs.17,46,000/- and after getting the estimate from T & T Motors Ltd. the complainant requested them to repair the vehicle on free of cost basis but they informed the complainant via email dated 22.07.2013 that “referred accidental situation has occurred due to extraneous factors such as entry of water in engine.”  On 11.11.2013, the OP company relying upon the report of surveyor repudiated the claim of complainant stating that “the said damages whatsoever to the engine could in no way be attributed to an external violent or an accident in any manner”.  It is further stated by the complainant that the report of the surveyor on which the OP company has relied upon is based on assumptions and no contingent reason has been given in it and he has not given the basis on which he came to the conclusion that damage to the engine could be attributed to cranking.  The complainant prayed that OP company be directed to pay a sum of Rs.17,46,000/- the amount assessed by the surveyor of the OP company and to pay interest @ 18% per annum from the date of loss till the date of realization; Rs.2,00,000/- towards harassment, tension and agony undergone by the complainant and Rs.50,000/- as cost of litigation.
2.           Notice was issued to the opposite party but as nobody entered appearance, it was proceeded with ex parte on 22.10.2014.
3.           Evidence by way of affidavit filed along with the documents Annexure C-1 (copy of extract of Board of Resolution); Annexure C-2 (Registration Certificate); Annexure C-3 (copy of Motor Insurance Certificate-cum-Policy Schedule);Annexure C-4 (Estimate given by T & T Motors Ltd.); Annexure C-5 (Motor Claim Form); Annexure C-6 (Surveyor Report); Annexure C-7 (email by T & T Motors Ltd.) and Annexure C-8 (Letter of repudiation of claim of complainant).
4.           Heard Ld. Counsel for the complainant and gone through the record.  Complainant has placed on record the copy of the insurance policy Annexure C-3 in which it is clearly mentioned that the car in question is insured for the period 05.03.2013 to 04.03.2014 for value of Rs.27,00,000/- covering loss by flood, typhoon, hurricane, storm, tempest, inundation, cyclone, hailstorm and frost.  Annexure C-5 is the claim form submitted by the complainant to the OP company in which he has mentioned that the rain water logging was there.  In the claim repudiation letter Annexure C-8 the OP company has stated that the car remained submerged in the water throughout the night which is attributed to water lock failure which is familiar form for ‘hydrostatic lock’ and this is possible only if an attempt is made to recrank and restart the engine again after it had stalled after wading through the water.  Certainly the owner/driver of the car would never intentionally take the car in deep water or keep the car standing throughout night in the water to cause damage to its own properly.   The complainant has specifically stated in the complaint that the car engine stopped, the car was locked and pushed the same towards the dried portion of the road and the driver never tried to start it again as he knew that as the engine was inundated with water, trying to turn the engine block or smolder the electrical in the vehicle causing it to short circuit or catch fire.  As the OP did not enter appearance it could not rebut the averments made in the complaint.   
5.           The surveyor appointed in this case has submitted his report Annexure C-6 and assessed the loss @ Rs.17,46,000/- which has not been challenged by the complainant whereas T & T Motors Ltd. has given the estimate of Rs.19,70,553/- as per Annexure C-4.      
6.           Counsel for complainant has placed reliance on the decision of the Chandigarh State Commission in Kanta Dhir vs. The Manager ICICI Lombard & Anr Appeal case No.830/07 decided on 24.10.2008 in which it was held that if a person is going in the car and all of a sudden rain starts and the water accumulates in the intersection enters the engine or engine is seized then it is not the fault of the insured and insurer is liable to reimburse the same. 
7.           Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble State Commission, Chandigarh in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. V.K. Bawa, Case No.428/09 decided on 11.11.2009 and the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rakesh Chawla, RBT/First Appeal No.58 of 2011 decided on 18.01.2012.
8.           Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and the judgments relied upon by the complainant’s counsel we hold the OP company liable  and direct it to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.17,46,000/- with interest @ 12% from the date of filing of complaint till realization, pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation.
9.           The above order shall be complied with within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. 
10.           Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
11.                     File be consigned to record room.
12.                     Announced on  29.03.2016.   

 

(N.K. Sharma) President

(Nishat Ahmad Alvi) Member

(Manju Bala Sharma) Member