Punjab

Rupnagar

RBT/CC/18/124

Sunil Bansal - Complainant(s)

Versus

United India Insurance Com - Opp.Party(s)

SK Verma adv

08 Aug 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

LUDHIANA

Complaint No.	:	RBT/CC/124/2018
Date of Institution	:	23.02.2018
Date of Decision	:	08.08.2024

 

 

                                      AMENDED COMPLAINT

M/s Compac Technology India Limited, 11, First Floor, Roshan Market, G.T. Road, Miller Ganj, Ludhiana, through its Managing Director Sunil Bansal Son of Sh. R.D. Bansal. 

                                                                                                ……Complainant                                                                 Versus

1. United India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, 151, Industrial Area-A, Cheema Chowk, Ludhiana, through its Branch Manager, Surya Tower, 108, The Mall, Ludhiana.
2. Lally Motors India Private Limited, G.T. Road, Jugiana Ludhiana, through its Director/Managing Director.
3. Volkswagen Group Sales India Private Limited, Cooperate Office No.401 & 402, 4^th Floor, A and B Wing, Silver Utopia, Cardinal Gracious Road, Chakala, Andheri East, Mumbai, Maharashtra-400099 through its Chairman/Managing Director/authorized signatory 

……Opposite Parties

Consumer complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986

QUORUM:

                   Sh. Kuljit Pal Singh                President

                     Smt. Ranvir Kaur                    Member

                   Sh. Ramesh Kumar Gupta     Member

PRESENT:

                   For the complainant        :       Sh. Manish Dharmani, Adv.

                   For the OP1                     :       None.

                   For the OP No.2              :      Complaint not admitted

For the OP No.3          :        Name of OP No.3 has deleted from `                             the arrays of the parties            

ORDER:

 

Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant submitted that complainant company is a limited company duly incorporated under India Companies Act and Sh. Sunil Bansal is the Managing Director of the complainant company and he was authorized vide resolution dated 6.6.2017 to institute and prosecute the complaint. As such, he is fully competent to file the present complaint. The complainant is owner of Volkswagen Polo GP GT TSI (Sedan) bearing No.PB-10-FR-5325, Model 2016, bearing Engine No.CBZK34341, Chassis No.GT078199 and he purchased the same from OP No.2 having been manufactured by the OP No.3.  The said vehicle was insured by OP No.1 vide policy No.2011023115P115996721 valid from 21.3.2017 to midnight of 20.3.2018, customer ID No.23022979466. On dated 31.8.2017 at about 8.30 PM, the complainant was going from his office to his house and when the complainant reached at Sidhwan Canal underpass, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana, and he crossed his car from Sidhwan Canal, in rainy water, which was collected at Sidhwan Canal and the said vehicle stopped in the rainy water. The complainant immediately contacted to Sh. Anil Kapoor, Divisional Officer of OP No.1 with regard to the said incident and he advised to the complainant to tow his vehicle and left the same at OP No.2 for its repair. The complainant immediately lodged a claim, bearing No.2011023117C050128001 with OP No.1 of his vehicle and subsequently, the surveyor was appointed by the OP No.1. The surveyor visited the OP No.2 on 6.9.2017 and got the loss assessed. Thereafter, the surveyor did not respond back for few days and after subsequently follow ups with the OP No.1,  the surveyor Mr. Narinder Singh Dhillon, send a mail to OP No.2 on 27.9.2015 for demanding the technical report and suspected estimate from the OP No.2. The complainant followed up the same with the OPs and surveyor after which a technical report and estimate was sent by the OP No.2 on 31.10.2017. Thereafter on 15.11.2017, the complainant again sends mails to the Branch Manager of OP no.1, which was duly received by him. But till date no reply has been given. The complainant several times visited the OP No.2 for repair of his vehicle but his car is still lying with the OP No.2. The complainant received a letter dated 19.12.2017 and same was delivered on 4.1.2018 for rejecting the claim of the complainant citing the reason not mentioned in the policy issued, meaning thereby the OP No.1 rejected the claim of the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant again approached the OPs for the repair of his vehicle, but the OPs did not reply to repair the same without taking claim covered the policy and the said vehicle is lying in repair condition with OP No.2. All the relevant documents were already submitted to the OP No.1 The said act of the OPs is illegal, null and void and amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, prayed for the following reliefs against the OP1 by the complainant:-

1. OP No.1 is directed to repair his vehicle or deliver the new one the same vehicle to the complainant.
2. OP No.1 is directed to pay Rs.8,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant for the damages and loss suffered by him.
3. Any other additional or alternative relief to which the complainant is found entitled to, in the circumstances of the case be also granted to the complainant.

Hence, this complaint.

3.     Notice of this complaint has been given to the OPs, and OP No.1 filed joint written reply taking preliminary objections that after the claim lodged by the complainant regarding the damage of his car and immediately, it was duly registered and processed, Er. N.S. Dhillon, surveyor and loss assessor was deputed for survey and assessment of loss. Er. N.S. Dhillon, inspected the vehicle and took photographs, collected documents and he requested many times to the Volkaswagen Lally Motors, India Private Limited, to supply technical report on account of loss of the vehicle as the same was mandatory prior to assess the loss. But they did not supply the technical report. Er. N.S. Dhillon had send email dated 7.11.2017, 27.9.2017 and 18.9.2017 to Lali Motors but they did not supply the same. Surveyor has submitted his report on dated 30.11.2017. After the receipt of the survey report along with documents, the claim of the insured M/s Compac Technology India Limited was scrutinized in term of insurance policy and it was found that the claim was not payable as per terms and conditions of the policy vide repudiated letter dated 19.12.2017 and the same has been reproduced as under:-

Ref: SERVICE HUB;510137

DATED: 19.12.2017

M/s Compac Technology India Limited,                             (REGD)

11 1^st Floor, Roshan Market

G.t. Road,

Miller Ganj

 Ludhiana

Sir,

Ref:   Claim of vehicle No.PB-10-FR-5325

          COVERED Under Policy No.2011023116O117871792

          While going through your claim file, it has been observed that Hydro-Static Lock loss comes under mechanical internal breakdown loss is not covered under the policy.

As per condition Section-1 Loss of or Damage to the vehicle insured (2) “the Company shall not be liable to make any payment in respect of consequential loss, depreciation, wear and tear, mechanical or electrical breakdown failure or breakages”.

The Company undertakes to pay compensation as per loss/damage is cause by violent accidental internal and visible means whereas your loss comes under mechanical and internal breakdown.

Keeping in view of above facts, we are closing your claim file as No Claim. We absolve over selves from any further liabilities arising of this accidental claim.

Thanking you

                    Sd/-

AUTHORISED SIGNATORY

 

The claim of the insurer was not payable as the damage was due to mechanical breakdown and as per terms and conditions of the policy, the insurance company is not liable to make any payment in respect of loss and damages due to mechanical breakdown.  While giving reply on merits, it was again reiterated that the damage was due to mechanical breakdown, as such, the same is not payable. Hence, prayed to dismiss the complaint.

4. As per the order dated 20.3.2018, of this Forum, the complaint not admitted against OP No.2 i.e. Lally Motors. Name of the OP No.3 i.e. Volkswagen Group Sales India Private Limited, has been deleted from the arrays of the parties vide order dated 08.08.2024. 
5. The learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C31 and closed the evidence.
6. In rebuttal, the learned counsel for the OPs has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A along with documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R27 and closed the evidence. 
7. As per the written arguments filed by the learned counsel for the complainant, it is submitted that the vehicle was insured with the OP No.1 on dated 31.8.2017 at about 8.30 PM, when the complainant was going from his office to his house and at that time rainy water was collected at Sidhwan Canal and the said vehicle was stopped in rainy water. He lodged the claim with the OP No.1 and the vehicle was shifted to OP No.2 for the repair. Although, the surveyor was visited on 6.9.2017 and got the loss assessed but the claim was not processed despite the various emails send by the complainant to the OP No.1. After that vide letter dated 4.1.2018, claim of the complainant was rejected as the claim is not covered under the policy. The vehicle is lying in a repair condition with the OP No.2. The said act and conduct of the OPs is amounts to deficiency in service. The complainant produced the documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C31 to prove his case. Hence, prayed to allow the compliant.
8. On the other hand, as per the written arguments submitted by the learned counsel for the OP No.1 (United India Insurance Company), it is mainly relied upon the Surveyor report submitted by the Er. N.S. Dhillon as the surveyor stated that Lally Motors India Private Limited has not supplied the technical report on account of the loss of the vehicle as the same was mandatory prior to assess the loss. Surveyor also send various emails to the Lally Motors. After that he submitted his surveyor report dated 30.11.2017 as the claim was found not payable as per the terms and conditions of the policy and the claim was repudiated vide letter dated 19.12.2017. It is further mentioned in the written arguments that it was a Hydro-static lock loss comes under mechanical internal breakdown and the said loss is not covered under Section 1 (Loss of or Damage to the vehicle insured (2). OP also tendered documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R27. The learned counsel for the OP No.1 further relied upon the various cases law as mentioned in the written arguments. Mainly, on the ground that the report of the surveyor has to be accepted. Hence, prayed to dismiss the complaint.
9. As per the above discussions, we come to the conclusion that the present complaint has been filed by M./s Compac Technology India Private Limited, through its Managing Director Sh. Sunil Bansal. The said car bearing No.PB-10-FR-5325 is owned by M/s Compac Technology India Private Limited and the same was insured with OP No.1. On dated 31.8.2017, when Sunil Bansal, Managing Director of the complainant company was going to his house from his office in said insured car and due to rainy water stagnated at Sidhwan Canal and the water entered into the engine of the insured car and stopped it. After that the complainant lodged the claim of the said vehicle with the OP No.1 as the same was shifted to Lally Motors, for the repair. In this case, Er. N.S. Dhillon, was appointed as a surveyor, who inspected the damaged car and gave his report Ex.C17 that it is Hydro-static lock loss comes under mechanical internal breakdown and the said loss is not covered under Section 1 (Loss of or Damage to the vehicle insured clause 2 of the insurance policy. Therefore, the claim of the complainant is not payable. However, we are not agree with the above said submission of the surveyor and OP No.1 as the loss to the insured vehicle covered under Section 1 (v) of the policy, which is reproduced as under:-

(v) By flood typhoon hurricane storm, tempest, inundation cyclone hall storm frost.

10. As the rainy water was stagnated at Sidhwan Canala and when the complainant passed through that water, it entered into the car of the complainant and cause damage to the vehicle. The above said stagnated water comes under the “inundation” and covered under clause (v) of the policy. In this regard, we relied upon decided case of AIR 2020 (Supreme Court) 921, of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in Civil Appeal No.7402 of 2009, in case titled as Oriental Insurance Company Vs M/s J.K. Cement Works. In this authority, the Hon’ble Apex Court, described the meaning of “inundation” in para No.10 of the judgment, which is reproduced as under:-
11.  
11. Moreover, in para No.12 point (1) of the Hon’ble Apex Court, judgment further submitted that “We have already highlight that the terms “flood” and “inundation” are often used synonymously to refer to the act of overflowing of water over land that is generally dry”
12. Hence, in this case, water was stagnated at Sidhwan Canal under pass and the said water entered into the insured car when he tried to pass through that passage to approach his house. Therefore, under the clause 1(v) of the insurance policy same shall be considered as car damaged due to flood/inundation. As such, the claim of the complainant covered under the said clause of the insurance policy. Although, the OP No.1 claimed that it is Hydro-static lock loss comes under the mechanical internal breakdown and the said loss is not covered under Section 1 (Loss of or Damage to the vehicle insured (2). But as we have already discussed the above said loss covered under the clause 1(v) of the policy that due to flood/inundation. Now, it has to be decided regarding the actual loss of the insured car. Although, the complainant has submitted the estimate Ex.R13, of Lally Motors, Ludhiana, of Rs.5,33,093.02/- but as per the report of the surveyor Ex.R8, the surveyor has assessed the loss of the insured car in his report that “with the help of engine rotation and he was convinced from the rotation, the inside of the engine loss is not on higher side”.  As such, we are not agreed with the estimates of Rs.5,33,093.02/- of the Lally Motors, Ludhiana, regarding the damaged car. As the engine of the damaged car is not totally damaged, as such, complainant is not entitled to recover the total estimate cost given by the Lally Motors, Ludhiana.
13. As per the opinion of this Commission, 50% of the total estimate amount shall be paid to the complainant by the OP No.1 only regarding the damaged car.
14. Therefore, we partly allow the present complaint with the directions to the OP No.1 i.e. United India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, 151, Industrial Area-A, Cheema Chowk, Ludhiana, to pay the 50% of the total estimate amount given by the Lally Motors, Ludhiana,  of Rs.5,33,093.02/- to the complainant. If the said amount has not been paid to the complainant by the OP No.1 within two months from the date of this order then complainant is also entitled to receive the simple interest @ 6% per annum on the said amount from the date of repudiation of the claim of the complainant.  The OP No.1 is further burdened to pay Rs.20,000/-  as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment.
15.  The instant compliant could not be disposed of within stipulated period due to paucity of staff. Free certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. File be indexed & concerned clerk is directed to consign the file and sent back the same to the District Commission, Ludhiana, against the proper receipt.

Pronounced: 08.08.2024