Haryana

Sonipat

CC/56/2016

M/s Aggarwal Glass Works - Complainant(s)

Versus

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Narender Ranga

02 Sep 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

             

 

                             Complaint No.56 of 2016

                             Instituted on:17.02.2016                                       Date of order:02.09.2016

 

M/s Aggarwal Glass Works, Tanwar White House, Gali no.3, Kalighat, Yauna Kunj Marg, Wazirabad, Delhi-110084 through its Partner Chattar Singh son of Chander Singh.

 

…Complainant.

Versus

 

1.The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Divisional Office 313, Model Town Delhi road, Rohtak (notice/summons be served through Divisional Office, First Floor, Vardhman Complex, Delhi road, Opp. Civil Hospital, Sonepat.

2.Lohchab Motor Company Pvt. Ltd., head office Ist Floor, Rohtak Tower, Delhi Byepass, Rohtak through its Managing Director/Authorized person.

 

                                           …Respondents.

 

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF        

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by:Sh. Naveen Ranga Adv. for complainant.

         Sh. HC Jain Adv. for respondent no.1.

          Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Adv. for respondent no.2.

 

BEFORE    NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT.

          PRABHA WATI, MEMBER.

          J.L. GUPTA, MEMBER.

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging himself to be the registered owner of the vehicle no.DL-04-CNB-8361 and the same was insured with the respondent no.1 for the period valid w.e.f. 25.6.2014 to 24.6.2015.  Unfortunately in the month of 3/2015, the engine of the said vehicle suddenly stopped with a noise and it could not be restart.  The vehicle was lifted to workshop of respondentno.2 and the matter was reported to the respondent no.1, who deputed D.R. Gupta surveyor and loss assessor.  The respondent no.2 thoroughly inspected the vehicle and observed that the hydrostatic was locked due to water in the combustion chamber.  On the request of the respondent no.2, the manufacturing company Mahindra and Mahindra supplied new engine to the dealer.  The respondent no.2 replaced the defective engine with new one on payment basis.  The complainant visited the office of the respondents and requested to repair and replace the faulty engine.  At the time of receiving the new engine the respondent no.2 asked the complainant to pay the cost of the engine and the complainant has paid the entire amount of engine and other parts to the tune of Rs.737322/- to the respondent no.2. The complainant has requested the respondent no.1 for the settlement of the claim, but of no use.  Rather the complainant was shocked to receive the letter dated 14.1.2016 by which the respondent no.1 has repudiated the claim of the vehicle on flimsy grounds and the complainant has alleged the repudiation of his claim to be wrong and illegal. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        The respondent no.1 and 2 appeared and they filed their separate written statement.

          The respondent no.1 has submitted that the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated vide letter dated 14.1.2016.  Shri Daya Ram Gupta surveyor and loss assessor was deputed to assess the loss and the said surveyor has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.598815/-  and salvage value to the tune of Rs.10000/-.  However, the said surveyor in his report has mentioned that engine of the vehicle sucked in the water and in effort to start the vehicle again and again, hydrostatic lock occurred and these losses are consequential and are not covered under the terms and conditions of the policy.  The driver of the vehicle did not take any precautions while crossing the vehicle through stagnant water.  Thus, the claim was rightly repudiated by the respondent no.1 and the complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation.

          In reply, the respondent no.2 has submitted that the respondent no.2 has asked the complainant to pay the cost of new engine. When the complainant has agreed to pay the amount voluntarily, then the respondent no.2 has replaced the engine and has received the entire cost of the engine.   There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.2 and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.        We have heard the arguments advanced by the ld. Counsel for both the parties at length and we have also gone through the entire relevant material available on the case file carefully & minutely.

4.       Ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that in the month of 3/2015, the engine of the vehicle no.DL-04-CNB-8361 suddenly stopped with a noise and it could not be restart.  The vehicle was lifted to workshop of respondentno.2 and the matter was reported to the respondent no.1, who deputed D.R. Gupta surveyor and loss assessor.  The respondent no.2 thoroughly inspected the vehicle and observed that the hydrostatic was locked due to water in the combustion chamber.  On the request of the respondent no.2, the manufacturing company Mahindra and Mahindra supplied new engine to the dealer.  The respondent no.2 replaced the defective engine with new one on payment basis.  The complainant visited the office of the respondents and requested to repair and replace the faulty engine.  At the time of receiving the new engine the respondent no.2 asked the complainant to pay the cost of the engine and the complainant has paid the entire amount of engine and other parts to the tune of Rs.737322/- to the respondent no.2. The complainant has requested the respondent no.1 for the settlement of the claim, but of no use.  Rather the complainant was shocked to receive the letter dated 14.1.2016 by which the respondent no.1 has repudiated the claim of the vehicle on flimsy grounds and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

          In support of his contention, he has relied upon the case law titled as Vinit Poonia Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 2012(II) CPJ 163 (NC).

          On the other hand, ld. counsel for the respondent no.1 has submitted that the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated vide letter dated 14.1.2016.  Shri Daya Ram Gupta surveyor and loss assessor was deputed to assess the loss and the said surveyor has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.598815/-  and salvage value to the tune of Rs.10000/-.  However, the said surveyor in his report has mentioned that engine of the vehicle sucked in the water and in effort to start the vehicle again and again, hydrostatic lock occurred and these losses are consequential and are not covered under the terms and conditions of the policy.  The driver of the vehicle did not take any precautions while crossing the vehicle through stagnant water.  Thus, the claim was rightly repudiated by the respondent no.1 and the complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation.

          In support of his contention, he has relied upon the case law titled as Balendra Gautam Vs.Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.  2002(III) CPJ 244 (NC).

          In the present case, the surveyor has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.598815/- whereas the complainant has pleaded that he has paid the entire amount of engine and other parts to the tune of Rs.737322/- to the respondent no.2.

         Now the main question arises for consideration before this Forum is as to for what amount the complainant is entitled to?

         The respondent no.1 insurance company has repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that the surveyor in his report has mentioned that engine of the vehicle sucked in the water and in effort to start the vehicle again and again, hydrostatic lock occurred and these losses are consequential and are not covered under the terms and conditions of the policy.

         In our view, the damage to the complainant’s vehicle amounts to accidental one.  All this has happened during the validity of the insurance policy and the respondent no.1 has rendered deficient services to the complainant only to cause mental agony and harassment.  The law on which the ld.counsel for the respondent has relied upon is not applicable to the case in hand as the same is on different footings.

         In our view, the ends of justice would be fully met if directions are given to the respondent no.1 to pay Rs.6,30,000/- to the complainant as the surveyor has assessed the amount of Rs.598815/-.  Thus, we hereby direct the respondent no.1 to make the payment of Rs.6,30,000/- (Rs.six lacs thirty thousand) to the complainant within a period of 30 days from the date of filing of the present complaint till its realization and further to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.Five thousand for rendering deficient services, harassment and under the head of litigation expenses.  The present complaint stands allowed qua respondent no.1

Certified copy of this order be provided to both

the parties free of costs.

 

(Prabha Wati) (J.L.Gupta)   (Nagender Singh-President)

Member         Member                DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced: 02.09.2016