BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Transocean Infotech and Education Services Pvt. Ltd., through its Director Jaspreet Singh Bhaika, C/o SCO No.66-67, First Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

                                      V E R S U S

1]      Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd., SCO No.232-234, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh, through its General Manager.

2]      Protech Engineers & Loss Assessors, SCF No.40, Phase-9, Mohali 160062, through Pukhraj Singh.

                                                ……Opposite Parties

CORAM:     SH.P.D.GOEL                                              PRESIDENT

                   SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL                        MEMBER

                   DR.(MRS).MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA      MEMBER

Argued by:    Sh.Kulbir Singh Sekhon, Counsel for complainant.

Sh.Varun Chawla, Counsel for OP No.1.

OP No.2 already exparte.

PER P.D.GOEL,PRESIDENT

1.                The complainant’s car (Skoda Superb) bearing registration No.CH-04-K-2752, duly insured with OP No.1 vide Policy – Annexures C-1 & C-2, went into a pit-hole on 5.3.2011, while on way to Baddi (H.P.), as a result, the alloy wheel got damaged, which was replaced with extra wheel.  It is averred that at that time, the complainant thought that the damage is limited to this only, but on 7.3.2011, when the vehicle was taken to Krishna Automobiles, Chandigarh, their technicians disclosed that its rear wheel rim & rear suspension frame got damaged.  The car remained in the workshop from 7.3.2011 to 9.3.2011.  OP No.1 was intimated about the loss/damage on 11.3.2011, whereupon OP No.2 (Surveyor) vide letter dated 15.3.2011 (Annexure     C-3) put some queries, which were replied vide e-mail Annexure C-4, dated 23.3.2011. OP No.2 again sought some clarification vide e-mail dated 23.3.2011, which was replied on 31.3.2011 vide Annexure C-6.  However, OP-2 again asked to clarify certain points, which were replied vide e-mail Annexure C-7.  In the meanwhile, the complainant got repaired the car by paying Rs.62,763/- (Annexures C-8 &     C-9). 

                   It is averred that the OPs did not reimburse the amount spent on the repair of the car.  The action of OPs by not reimbursing the amount, amounts to deficiency in service as well their indulgence into unfair trade practice.  Hence, this complaint.

2.                OP No.1 filed reply and took preliminary objection that the complainant is a commercial entity; hence the present complaint is not maintainable. On merits, the OP No.1, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that the intimation was given after 6 days from the date of loss as stated in the claim form, as such the complainant has violated the Condition NO.1 of the policy, which stipulates immediately intimation of any loss (Annexure R-2).  It is also stated the complainant failed to give satisfactory reply to the queries put by their Surveyor/OP-2 from time to time vide Annexure R-3, dated 15.3.2011 and Annexure R-4, dated 29.3.2011. The Surveyor submitted his report to the OP Insurance Company vide Annexure R-6.

                   It is asserted that the rear wheel rim and rear sub frame were damaged. However, parts which are below the rear sub frame were not even scratched. As no satisfactory reply was given by the complainant, as to how the damages had been caused to the vehicle, hence the claim was rightly repudiated for giving wrong declaration with regard to the cause of accident in the claim form (Annexure R-1). Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations, OP No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.                OP No.2 did not appear despite due service, hence it was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 1.2.2012.

4.                 Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5.                 We have heard the learned Counsel for the complainant and learned Counsel for OP No.1 and have also perused the record.

6.                The learned Counsel for the complainant raised the arguments that the Skoda Superb car of the complainant bearing registration No. CH-04-K-2752, duly insured with OP No.1 vide Policy - Annexures C-1 & C-2, went into a pit-hole on 5.3.2011, as a result, the alloy wheel got damaged, which was replaced.  It was further submitted that on 7.3.2011, when the vehicle was taken to Krishna Automobiles, Chandigarh, their technicians disclosed that its rear wheel rim & rear suspension frame also got damaged.  The OP No.1 was intimated about the loss on 11.3.2011. The surveyor was appointed, who raised certain queries, which was replied by the complainant.  The complainant got repaired the car by paying Rs.62,763/- qua Annexures C-8 & C-9. It was lastly argued that despite of the request of complainant, the OPs had failed to reimburse the amount of Rs.62,763/-.

7.                The learned Counsel for OP No.1 raised the arguments that the intimation was given after 6 days from the date of alleged loss as such the complainant has violated the Condition No.1 of the policy, which stipulates immediate intimation of any loss.  It was lastly argued that the rear wheel rim and rear sub frame were damaged and the parts below the rear sub frame were not even scratched. The complainant failed to give any satisfactory reply, as to how the damaged had been caused to the vehicle, hence the claim was rightly repudiated for giving wrong declaration with regard to the cause of accident in the claim form – Annexure R-1.

8.                The other facts are admitted. The question which calls determination from this Court is whether the complainant has not given proper reply as to how the damage had been caused to the vehicle. The answer to this is in the affirmative.

9.                The learned Counsel for the complainant, during the course of arguments, made a reference to Annexure C-8, the Retail Invoice of Rs.62,763/- issued by Krishna Auto Sales dated 10.3.2011, wherein, under the column ‘Labour and Job Work’, it has been recorded “a) Accidental Labour b) Wheel Alignment and Balancing.” The OPs have placed on record the report of Protech Engineers & Loss Assessors – Annexure R-6 dated 14.5.2011, wherein, under the column ‘Observations’, it has been stated “The date of loss reported by the insured is 05.03.2011. However we obtained a copy of service bill of the car from the dealer dated 09.03.2011. As per this, the vehicle came to workshop on 07.03.2010. As per information gathered, the insured has not reported this defect to the workshop people. The job performed on the vehicle was its regular service and replacement of Brake Lining.”

10.              The close scrutiny of the said observations qua Annexure R-6 makes it clear that the job performed on the vehicle was its regular service and replacement of brake lining. It is settled principle of law that the report of the surveyor is a valuable piece of evidence and the same can be ignored, if not rebutted by cogent evidence. In the instant case, the complainant has only placed on record the invoice – Annexure C-8 to prove that the loss was caused as the vehicle met with an accident. Admittedly, Annexure C-8 is only a retail invoice and under the column ‘Labour and Job Work’, under the heading ‘Description’, accidental labour and wheel alignment and balancing has been recorded, so it is not sufficient to prove that the loss to the vehicle was caused in accident. More so, Annexure C-8, the retail invoice cannot be said to be the report of any expert nor its substitute, whereas, Annexure R-6 is the report from Protech Engineers & Loss Assessors, wherein, it has been specifically stated that the job performed on the vehicle was its regular service and replacement of brake lining. Under the given situation, we are of the opinion that the complainant has failed to prove on record that the loss to the vehicle has been caused in the accident. The matter does not rest here. At page no.30 of the reply, it has been further made clear by the Protech Engineers & Loss Assessors that the damage to the rear sub frame is not accidental in nature.

11.              In view of this, it is held that the complainant has failed to prove on record that the loss to the vehicle bearing registration No. CH-04-K-2752 is accidental in nature. Therefore, it is held that the repudiation of the claim by the OPs is legal and genuine.

12.              As a result of the above discussion, the complaint is dismissed, with no order as to costs.

13.              The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.