Haryana

StateCommission

A/847/2015

TATA AIA LIFE INSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

RANBIR SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

RECEIVED FROM NCDRC,NEW DELHI

06 May 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

Remand Appeal No:    847 of 2015

                              In

First Appeal No: 1380 of 2012

Date of Institution:20.12.2012/06.10.2015

Date of Decision: 06.05.2016

 

M/s Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited, Registered Office Peninsula Corporate Park, Nicholas Pirmal Tower, 9^th Floor, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013.

(through its authorised signatory, Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited Lotus Towers, Ist Floor, Community Centre, New Friends Colony, New Delhi-110025).

                                      Appellant/Opposite Party No1

Versus

 

1.      Ranbir Singh s/o late Sh. Net Ram, Resident of Farm House Baldi Bye Pass, Karnal.

                                      Respondent/Complainant

2.      Sidak Automobiles Private Limited, 71/3, Mile Stone, G.T. Road, Karnal-132001.

Respondent/Opposite Party No.2

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Argued by:          Shri Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate for appellant.

                             Shri Ranbir Singh-respondent No.1 in person.

Ms. Simarpreet Kaur, Advocate for respondent No.2.

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

Ranbir Singh-complainant (respondent No.1 herein) owned car bearing registration No.HR-04N-0003, make Skoda. It was got insured with Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited (for short ‘the Insurance Company’)-Opposite Party No.1/appellant, for the period November 6^th, 2010 to November 5^th, 2011 vide Cover Note Exhibit C-4. The Insured Declared Value (IDV) of the car was Rs.5,18,000/-.

2.      On September 13^th, 2011 there was heavy rain. The complainant was driving the above said car in the area of Sector-8, Panchkula. Due to heavy water on the road, the car stopped. The complainant contacted Sidak Automobiles-Opposite Party No.2 on telephone. The officials of the opposite party No.2 advised the complainant to bring the car at their workshop at Karnal. The complainant contacted Krishna Automobiles Private Limited, Chandigarh, that is, the dealer of the car from where it was purchased. A mechanic from Krishna Automobiles visited the spot and thereafter the car was shifted to the workshop of Krishna Automobiles, Chandigarh. The complainant paid Rs.500/- towards the Mechanic Charges and Rs.700/- as Towing Charges. The complainant was advised that since the car was insured through the opposite party No.2 and the insurance policy being cashless, so the car be taken to the workshop of the opposite party No.2. Accordingly, the car was brought to the workshop of the opposite party No.2 on September 17^th, 2011 for which the complainant paid Rs.4100/- as towing charges from Chandigarh to Karnal.

3.      On October 3^rd, 2011 the opposite party No.2 assessed the estimated loss of the car at Rs.3,19,531.91. However, the surveyor of the Insurance Company (Shri Mahesh Kalra) assessed the estimated loss at Rs.72,617/-. On demand of the opposite party No.2, the complainant paid Rs.50,000/- as advance for repair of the car, vide cheque No.758365 drawn on Punjab National Bank, Model Town, Karnal. The car was repaired by the opposite party No.2 but they (opposite party No.2) asked the complainant to pay the repair expenses, that is, Rs.3,30,617/- inspite of the fact that the car was insured against cashless policy. The complainant paid Rs.2,80,000/- to the opposite party No.2 vide cheque No.758368 dated 24.11.2011. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

4.      The opposite party No.1-the Insurance Company resisted complainant’s claim raising plea that the standard policy of insurance does not cover any consequential loss resulting from ingress of water. the damage to the engine cannot happen merely by coming into contact with water unless there is a mechanical failure or trying to start/run engine when same is in contact with the water.  A sum of Rs.25,788/- was already allowed by Insurance Development Regulatory Authority (IRDA) licensed independent surveyor Shri Mahesh Kalra, for replacement of engine oil, flushing of engine and oil filter and the said amount has already been paid to the complainant.

 5.     Opposite Party No.2 also resisted complaint submitting that the opposite party No.1 was to indemnify the claim of the complainant. It was stated that it (opposite party No.2) carried out the repairs and received payment of Rs.3,30,000/- from the complainant. It was prayed that the complaint merited dismissal.

6.      After evaluating the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum vide order dated October 17^th, 2012 accepted complaint. The operative part of the order is reproduced as under:-

“5.     Thus, after taking into consideration the report Ex.C20 given by Shri J.K. Sharma, Surveyor we are of the view, that the surveyor of the Op No.1 has wrongly assessed the amount only to the tune of Rs.25,788/- vide his report dated 28.11.2011 Ex.O3. In our view there was deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1. We are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled to recover only Rs.1,47,559-00 regarding the cost of parts after deducting depreciation to the tune of 40%. Besides this he is also entitled to recover Rs.51841/- towards labour charges. Thus, the complainant is entitled to recover Rs.1,99,400-00 from the OP No.1. Besides this, he is also entitled to recover Rs.4800/- towards towing and lifting charges. The total amount which the complainant is entitled to recover from the Op No.1. Comes to Rs.2,04,200/-. The amount which was assessed by the surveyor has not been received by the complainant. Therefore, we direct the respondent No.1 to pay the sum of Rs.2,04,200/- alongwith interest at the rate of nine percent per annum from 28.11.2011 till its actual realization. Besides this, the respondent No.1 is also directed to pay Rs.20,000/- to the complainant for the harassment caused to him alongwith Rs.11000/- towards the litigation charges. The Op No.1 shall make the compliance of this order within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.”

7.      Earlier also, the instant appeal was dismissed by this Commission vide its order dated January 2^nd, 2013. Revision Petition being filed by the Insurance Company, Hon’ble National Commission vide order dated September 1^st, 2015 set aside the order of this Commission and remanded the case to this Commission to decide it afresh. Hence, appeal before this Commission.

8.      Indisputably, the Insurance Policy Exhibit C-4 is a Cashless policy in which the complainant has not to pay the expenses, for damage or repair to the vehicle, otherwise the word “cashless” loses its sanctity. It is a matter of common knowledge that cashless policy carries extra premium. If despite payment extra premium, the complainant has still to run around to seek compensation, not only that the consumers’ faith in the insurer would be shaken but it would also frustrate the purpose of having cashless policy. 

9.      The car was got repaired from authorised dealer and the payments were made to the authorised dealer vide payee account cheques. The receipts/documents (Exhibits C-6 to C-14) with respect to the repair expenses have been placed on the file.  The appellant/Insurance Company has paid the charges for change of oil, oil filter etcetera and has denied the remaining charges stating that the rest was on account of consequential loss, which is not covered under the policy. There are no allegations that the consequential loss was on account of any negligence on the part of the complainant. The consequential loss being as a result of the initial damage to the car has to be treated as one loss; it cannot be separated from the first part of the loss.

10.    In view of the above it is established that the appellant/Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the complainant with respect to the damage of his insured car. No case for interference is made out.  Hence, the appeal is dismissed.

 

Announced 06.05.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL