Haryana

StateCommission

A/268/2016

IFFCO TOKIO GEN.INSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

ROHIT DHIMAN - Opp.Party(s)

RAVINDER ARORA

10 Aug 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      268 of 2016

Date of Institution:      31.03.2016

Date of Decision :       10.08.2016

 

IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited, IFFCO Tower, 4^th & 5^th Floors, Plot No.3, Sector-29, Gurgaon-122001, Haryana.

 

                                      Appellant-Opposite Party No.5

Versus

 

1.      Rohit Dhiman s/o Sh. Prem Kumar, House No.711, Sector-5, Urban Estate, Kurukshetra.

Respondent-Complainant

2.      Kishiv Motors Private Limited near Umri Chowk, NH-1, G.T. Road, Kurukshetra.

3.      Honda Cars India Limited, Plot No.A-1, Sector 40-41, Surajpur-Kansa Road, Greater Noida, Industrial Area, District Gautam Budh Nagar. (U.P.)

4.      Honda Cars India Limited, Registered Office-409, Tower B, DLF Commercial Complex, Jasola, New Delhi-110025.

5.      Joshi Automobile Private Limited Harmony Honda Plot No.67, Industrial Area, Phase-2, Chandigarh.

                                      Respondents-Opposite Parties No.1 to 4

 

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Present:              Shri Ravinder Arora, Advocate and Shri Rohit Goswami, Advocate, for appellant.

                             Shri Amar Nath Manocha, Advocate for respondent No.1.

                             None for respondent No.2.

                             Shri Tarun Gupta, Advocate for respondents No.3 and 4.

                             Shri Rajesh Verma, Advocate for respondent No.5.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

          IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited (for short ‘the Insurance Company’)-Opposite Party No.5, is in appeal against the order dated January 20^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kurukshetra (for short ‘the District Forum’), whereby complaint filed by Rohit Dhiman-complainant (respondent No.1 herein), was partly allowed.  For ready reference, operative part of the order is reproduced as under:-

                   “16.   In view of our discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed and the opposite party No.5 is directed to pay the amount of Rs.2,61,814/- to the complainant to get his car repaired and Rs.5500/- as litigation charges and Rs.5000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment.  Further the opposite party No.1 is restrained from recovery any parking charges from the complainant till the car is repaired.  This order should be complied within a period of two months, failing which penal action under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 would be initiated against the opposite parties, mentioned above and in case of non payment, the amount in question shall accrue the simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of order….”

 

2.                on February 13^th, 2015, the complainant purchased a Honda City 1.5 SV MT car from Joshi Automotives Private Limited-Opposite Party No.4, vide invoice (Exhibit C-1) for Rs.8,87,501/-, the authorised dealer of Honda Cars India Limited-Opposite Parties No.2 & 3.  The car was insured with the Insurance Company for the period February 13^th, 2015 to February 12^th, 2016 for Rs.8,43,125/-, vide Insurance Policy Exhibit C-3.

3.                On April 15^th, 2015 the car stopped on the road submerged in rain water in Kurukshetra, when the complainant while driving it was on the way from Chandigarh to Kurukshetra.   On the next morning, the complainant shifted the car to Kishiv Motors Private Limited-Opposite Party No.1. The engineer of the opposite party No.1 told that the engine of the car was damaged having sucked water. The complainant approached the opposite party No.4 to repair the car and to get the cost of the repair from the Insurance Company because the complainant had taken insurance policy for bumper to bumper service, however, they refused on the ground that such type of repair was not covered under the policy. Rather, an estimate of Rs.2,61,814/- (approximately) with respect to the repair of the car was given to the complainant. The complainant, thereafter, approached the Insurance Company to provide the benefits of insurance but to no effect. Hence, complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed.

4.                The Opposite Parties contested complaint by filing written version. The opposite party No.1 in its reply stated that the car was not repaired because the complainant had not given permission to repair the same on payment basis. The car was brought to the workshop vide job card dated 16.04.2015 and an estimate of Rs.2,61,814/- was given to the complainant. 

5.                The opposite parties No.2 and 3, in the joint reply stated that the complainant did not disclose any specific defect in the car and therefore it cannot be termed any manufacturing defect. The relationship between the opposite parties No.2 and 3 and the opposite parties No.1 and 4, is purely on principal to principal basis; so each party is responsible for its own action. The complainant never had any direct dealing with the opposite parties No.2 and 3 because the car was purchased from the opposite party No.1, the authorised dealer of the company.

6.                The opposite party No.4 in its reply stated that a specific type of automotive engine damage occurs when the water enters the engine and is compressed in one or more cylinders. The damage sequence often called is hydrostatic lock. When water enters a typically automotive engine cylinder during the intake stroke. Water, unlike the fuel/air mixture is incompressible and during the compression stroke, locks the piston. This condition tends to overload the connecting rod, causing a bending failure of the rod and severe engine damage. A common way for water to enter the engine is when the car is driven through water logged area, sufficiently deep, to allow injection into the air intake system of the vehicle, such as crossing a flooded road. So, the claim of the complainant is not sustainable because the water had entered into the engine (external factor) which is not covered under the conditions of warranty and it is not due to any manufacturing defect.

7.                The Insurance Company-Opposite Party No.5, also denied complainant’s claim while taking the plea as stated in the preceding para herein above.

8.                After evaluating the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum vide impugned order allowed complaint as detailed in paragraph No.1 of this order.

9.                Indisputably, the car was purchased by the complainant from the opposite party No.1, the authorised dealer of opposite parties No.2 and 3. It is also not in dispute that the car stopped on the road submerged in rainy water. The warranty period of the car is also not in dispute.

10.              The only submission of the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company is that the complainant himself was negligent to drive the car into the rainy water and therefore the Insurance Company was not liable to pay the benefits of insurance to the complainant.

11.              The contention raised is not tenable. It is not in dispute that the car stopped in the rainy water on the road, when the complainant was on his way from Chandigarh to Kurukshetra. There is nothing on the record to show that the complainant had driven the car in deep water. From the evidence, it is established that the car of the complainant as well as other vehicles were passing on the road which was submerged in rainy water. Some vehicles were passing from opposite direction and because of the flow of water due to crossing of vehicles coming from opposite side, the car of the complainant stopped in the water. It has also come in evidence that the complainant was travelling in the said car along with his mother and wife and when the car stopped in the water, he called some other car and reached the destination. On the next morning, the car was shifted to the workshop (authorised service station of the company) where the engineers of the company tried to start the car but they failed. At that time, the car had run only 3,000 Kms and was within warranty period. The water entered in the engine of the car not on account of any fault attributable to the complainant but on account of the fact that the other vehicles were passing on the road and water flowed towards the car of complainant, which was beyond the control of the complainant.

12.              In view of the above, it is held that the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the complainant with respect to the expenses incurred by him on the repair of the car. Thus, no case for interference is made out.

13.              Hence, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

14.              The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced 10.08.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL