CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110016
Case No.106/2013
Mr. Pravesh Bhatia
Aged about 44 years
S/o Late Mr. Nanak A Bhatia
R/o A-8, South Extension-Part-1
New Delhi-110049. …..COMPLAINANT
Vs.
- Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited
Lotus Tower, 1st Floor, Community Centre
New Friends Colony
New Delhi-110025.
- Skoda Auto Volkswagen Private Limited
3 North Avenue, Level 4
Maker Maxity, Bandrakurla Complex
Bandra (East). …..RESPONDENTS
Date of Institution-19.02.2013
Date of Order- 13.09.2024
O R D E R
RITU GARODIA-MEMBER
- The complaint pertains to deficiency on the part of OP in not settling the insurance claim of the complainant.
- Facts as stated in complaint are that the complainant purchased a car- Volkswagen, Vento Model. A policy being No.0151027203 01 was taken from the OP1 on 27.10.2011 in respect of the said vehicle and a premium of Rs.18,538/- was paid for the same.
- The complainant states that the car was last serviced on 10.01.2012. It is further stated that on 20.05.2012, the car touched a speed breaker near IFFCO Chowk around 11.00 p.m. The car stopped with a jerk. Since it was late in the night, no mechanic could be arranged and the car was towed to the complainant’s residence at A-8, South Extension, Part-1, New Delhi. The car was again towed from the complainant’s residence to his acquaintance’s house in Greater Kailash-1.
- Next morning, the car was taken to M/s Satkaran Automobiles in Greater Kailash-1, which was an authorized service station. The incident was intimated to OP1 through their website on 21.05.2012. A confirmation was also received from the insurance. It is alleged that the surveyor did not inspect the car for the next 48 hours of such intimation.
- The complainant was informed by M/s Satkaran Automobiles that they were not in a position to attend to the car properly. The car was towed to M/s Frontier Automobiles. After due inspection by the service station, it was informed that the engine of the car had seized and an estimate of Rs.4,82,972/- in this regard was given to the complainant. An insurance claim No.800005104 in respect of Policy No.0151027203 01 was registered.
- The surveyor later rejected the claim and allowed Rs.10,370/- as against the total bill of Rs.4,82,972/-. The complainant rejected such offer of meager amount and paid the complete amount from his own pocket.
- It is submitted that the car was last serviced on 10.01.2012 and was not due for services as the vehicle had yet to run 10,000 km. It is further submitted that every part of the vehicle including the coolant, engine oil and brake oil was in perfect order.
- The complainant prays for OP1 to approve his claim, pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental harassment and Rs.25,000/- towards litigation. The complainant further prays that OP-2 should replace the defective car.
- OP 1 in its reply states that on intimation of the claim by the complainant, an IRDA licensed independent surveyor Sh. Anil Bansal was appointed to inspect the loss. The said surveyor requested the complainant to inform the garage/workshop details where the vehicle was placed for repairs so that the survey could be done. It is submitted that the complainant informed the surveyor that the vehicle is lying at a local workshop and will be shifted to another authorized workshop, M/s Frontier Autoworld Pvt. Ltd., where the survey can be done.
- Subsequently, the vehicle was shifted to the workshop by the complainant on 26.05.2013 at 12.30 pm. The job card dated 26.05.2013 clearly states that the vehicle came into the workshop without coolant.
- The surveyor observed on inspection that the coolant could get starved out resulting in seizure of engine if the vehicle is driven after accident without carrying out necessary repairs. It was further stated that the seizure of engine due to overheating without the presence of coolant was not payable as per the policy terms ad condition.
- OP1 submits that the surveyor had specifically stated in his letter dated 01.06.2012 that the seizure of engine is not payable and the liability of the insurance company was only limited to Rs.10,370/-. The complainant sent an email dated 08.11.2012 stating that he is not interested in taking the insurance claim.
- OP1 alleges that the Insurance Regulatory Development Authority (IRDA) has allowed add on cover to indemnify consequential losses which should mean that the loss for seizure of engine is not covered under the standard policy.
- OP 2 submits that the Volkswagen Vento car delivered to the complainant has passed through stringent quality tests and safety tests as per high quality requirements. It is alleged that the complainant has caused an accidental damage to the car. It is further alleged that the insurance company has refused to honour the claim to bear cost of repair of the car due to complainant’s own fault.
- The complainant in his rejoinder to OP1 has reiterated that after the accident, the vehicle was never driven but towed to his residence.
- The complainant in his rejoinder to OP2 has repeated the averments made in the complaint.
- The complainant has filed its evidence by way of affidavit and exhibited the following documents:-
- Copy of transport authority registration is exhibited as Exhibit A1.
- Copy of insurance policy is exhibited as Exhibit A2.
- Copy of intimation to insurance company and the confirmation is exhibited as Exhibit A3.
- Copy of rejection of claim is exhibited as Exhibit A4.
- Copy of amount offered and rejection by the complainant is exhibited as Exhibit A5 & A6
- Copy of communication exchanged is exhibited as Exhibit A7.
- OP1 failed to file evidence by way of affidavit. Right to file evidence by OP1 closed on 26.11.2015.
- OP2 filed evidence of Mr. Umesh Khadpe, Manager Legal by way of affidavit. However, no documents have been filed or exhibited.
- The Commission has perused the material and documents on record. It is admitted by all parties that the complainant has an insurance policy from OP1. It is also admitted by all parties that the vehicle of the complainant suffered a mishap on 20.05.2012.
- A job sheet dated 26.05.2012 shows that the vehicle was taken to Volkswagen Delhi Metropolitan Frontier Autoworld Pvt. Ltd. for accidental repair. The remarks in the job sheet is as follows:
‘vehicle resent by… with no coolant, enginemight be seized ‘
- A claim was filed and a surveyor was appointed. OP1 vide email dated 01.06.2012 has stated that the vehicle was surveyed on 26.05.2012 at the workshop of M/s Frontier Autoworld Pvt. Ltd. The relevant portion is as follows: On checking the vehicle it was observed that front bumper is scratched from bottom, Bulk head was found broken, Radiator was found cracked with no coolant in the cooling system & reservoir was found empty. Engine lower shield were found dismantled & were lying in dickey compartment. Traces of oil other parts in the engine compartment were found on front bumper, grill, head light & some other parts in the engine compartment.
We state that damages to engine is not payable as in no circumstances enginecan be seized if it is stopped immediately after the accident where as in your case radiator was found broken with no coolant in the cooling system and engine was found seized due to overheating.
- Relevant portion of the surveyor report dated 10.10.2012 is as follows: Cause of loss: As mentioned in the claim form that car went in a ditch & then hit a speed breaker from below the engine. Insured stop the car & towed the car to home.
-
Insured in the duly filed claim form has stated that after the accident he stopped the car and towed it to his residence which means he stop the running engine of car and in no circumstance if a running engine is stopped then later on it can’t be found seized due to overheating.
In the accident carrier got broken which in turns damaged the side plastic tank of radiator from which coolant starts leaking.Insured didn’t check the car for any kind of coolant leakages after the accident, neither checked the rising temp. of engine due to lack of coolant in the engine/due to cooling system failure which later on causes engine seizure.
-
In this case, due to accident plastic body of radiator got cracked and coolant starts leaking out of it which could have started at the place where insured’s vehicle hit the Speed Breaker.Insured didn’t check the car for any kind of coolant leakages after the accident, neither checked the rising temp. of engine due to lack of coolant in the engine/due to cooling system, kept on driving the car till the engine got overheated and finally engine got seized.
-
There are several proofs which proves that insured's car engine got seized due to overheating cause by no supply of coolant to the engine such as:-
1. According to the concerned mechanic cylinder head got bend due to overheating.
2. Plastic plate inside the timing plate got melted due to overheating.
3. Exhaust manifold made up of plastic got melted due to overheating.
4. Internal plastic components melted due to overheating & were found in the oil chamber.
5. Plastic body of engine oil strainer was de shaped due to overheating.
6. Other plastic components of timing were damaged due to overheating.
7. Plastic body of injectors was found melted due to overheating.
8. One of the pistons was found melted due to overheating.
9. Water lines were found melted due to overheating.
10. Clutch leather stuck with pressure plate/ flywheel due to overheating.
11. Some of other hoses were also got damaged due to overheating.
12. Some of the water lines of cylinder block were found filled with melted plastic.
- The complainant has not submitted any towing receipt as evidence. While the complainant asserts that the vehicle was towed from the accident site to his residence and subsequently to a workshop, he has failed to identify the towing company or provide any specific details, receipts, invoices, or other documentation to substantiate this claim. Furthermore, the email correspondence from the complainant to OP insurance company does not furnish any information regarding the means by which the vehicle was transported from the accident site.
- It appears that after the accident the radiator broke and the coolant started leaking. The damage caused to the engine was due to overheating. As per the survey report, there was no damage to the engine except seizure by overheating and this occurred when the vehicle is plied without coolant.
- In case of Motor Accident claim, a survey report is an important document. Though it may not be the last word, there has to be sufficient material to depart from it. In this case, there is no ground to meddle with the findings of the surveyor. The complainant is not entitled to whole loss surveyed by him except that is noted by the surveyor. Therefore, we are of the view that there is no deficiency in service and the complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs.
- Order be uploaded within 30 days and file be consigned to record room.
