Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/839/2019

Harish Bhardwaj - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bharti AXA General Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Rajesh Verma

20 Dec 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/839/2019
Date of Institution	:	16.08.2019
Date of Decision	:	20/12 /2022

 

Harish Bhardwaj@ Harish Chander Bhardwaj S/o Sh. A.K. Bhardwaj, R/o H. No. 3132, Sector 20-D, Chandigarh.

   

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1.  Bharti AXA General Insurance Co. Ltd. 1^st floor, Ferns Icon Survey No.28, Doddane Kundl, Bangalore-560037, Karnatka, through its Managing Director.
2. Bharti AXA General Insurance Co. Ltd. SCO No.350-351-352, 1^st floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh through its Manager.

 … Opposite Parties)

 

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
Argued BY:-	Sh. Rajesh Verma, Adv. for the complainant.
	Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Adv. for OPs.

 

Per Surjeet kaur, Member

1.     Succinctly put, the complainant got his car Volvo XC90  insured from OPs for the period from 28.2.2017 to 27.2.2018 by paying premium amount of Rs.39629/-  and accordingly Policy Annexure C-2 was issued without any terms and conditions. On 21.8.2017  the complainant parked his car on the road  i.e. back side of ISBT and in front of District Court Complex, sector 43, Chandigarh. On the said day there was heavy rain fall when the complainant came back after finishing the work he found that  the road on which he parked the car was having around 1 ft deep water. As a precautionary measure the complainant called the service centre of Volvo and on their advice got the car out of water through crane to a dry place and tried to start the same but the car did not start then the car was taken to the workshop of M/s Krishna Auto Sales, Chandigarh authorized dealer of Volvo. After inspection of the car it was intimated to the complainant that there is water in the air filter which could have moved to the engine resulting into further damage of the engine which could be assessed after opening of the head assembly.  Accordingly the complainant intimated the Opposite Parties insurance company and raised claim. The OPs got the vehicle inspected from their surveyor on 23.8.2017 and 1.9.2017 after partial dismantling  and thereafter Krishna Autosales gave estimate of Rs.2,10,737/- for repair of the vehicle. It is stated that the Surveyor vide letter dated 4.9.2017 Annexure C-4 intimated the complainant that they had observed presence of water in the engine and no external impact on the vehicle etc. and the Opposite Parties showed their inability to pay the claim on the ground of presence of water in the engine.   It is alleged that the OPs made false assertion of violation of clause 5 of the policy.  Whereas the complainant had taken all precautions as may be required in the given situation.  It is pleaded that  the loss caused to the vehicle on account of heavy rain causing flood like situation which is duly covered under Section (V) of the terms and conditions of the policy.  Copy of policy wordings downloaded from the internet is attached as Annexure C-5. Left with no other alternative the complainant after paying total sum of Rs.2,56,442/- for the repair of the car took delivery of the same from the dealer under protest with OPs insurance company. The OPs vide letters dated 12.12.2017 and 23.12.2017 informed the complainant that the claim has been processed and assessed for an amount of Rs. 33347/-. The complainant protested against the same but the OPs vide letter dated 30.12.2017  Annexure C-14A closed the claim of the complainant. Alleging the aforesaid act of the OPs as deficiency in service the instant complaint has been filed.
2. In its written statement the Opposite Parties while admitting the factual matrix of the case stated that the  car of the complainant was insured subject to terms and conditions of the policy and  Hydrostatic coverage is not covered under normal policy unless & otherwise opted by the insured. It is an add-on coverage, which Opposite Parties would be providing different types of policy to evince. It is alleged that the complainant tried to start the car after pulled out from the logged water which resulted into the damage to the car. Therefore, there is negligence on the part of the complainant. It is averred that a surveyor was appointed by the Opposite Parties, which assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.33347/- as per terms and conditions of the policy, however the complainant did not submit the discharge voucher and cancelled cheques despite number of requests and as such the claim of the complainant was closed. It is vehemently denied that there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. All other allegations made in the complaint have been denied being wrong and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3. Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
4.  The contesting parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and gone through the record of the case.
6. It is evident from Annexure C-2 at page 19 of the paperbook that the Volvo car in question was insured from 28.2.2017 to 27.2.2018 with Opposite Parties with IDV of Rs.19,44,000/- for which the complainant paid a huge amount of premium to the tune of Rs.39629/-. The grouse of the complainant is that despite the vehicle in question being insured when the same was stuck in the flood like situation on a rainy day on 21.8.2017 and did not start the complainant   had to spend a huge amount of Rs.2,56,442/-  for the repair of the same afterwards but the OPs vide letter dated 12.12.2017 (Annexure C-12) and 23.11.2017 (Annexure C-13) informed the complainant that the claim has been processed for an amount of Rs.33,347/-. The complainant protested the same but the OPs vide Annexure C-14A dated 30.12.2017 closed the claim  of the complainant with a reason that the complainant did not provide the discharge voucher and NEFT details as per demand of the Opposite Parties. Therefore presuming that the complainant is not interested for the claim the Opposite Parties closed the claim.
7.   The stand taken by the Opposite Parties is that the car of the complainant was insured subject to terms and conditions of the policy. It has been contended that the complainant negligently started the car in question after pulling out the same from the water, which resulted in the damage of the car. It is further contended that the surveyor assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.33,347/-  as per the policy and  it is the complainant only who did not respond to the requests of Opposite Parties to submit the discharge voucher and cancelled cheques. Therefore, in the absence of same the claim was closed.
8.  After going through the evidence on record, it is apparent that the complainant owns an expensive Volvo car which is insured with the Opposite Parties. As per the duly sworn affidavit of the complainant the day when the problem occurred to the car in question, it was a very heavy rainy day and this fact is duly admitted by the Opposite Parties.  The complainant has annexed various bills Annexure C-6 to C-11 raised for the repairs of the car in question.
9. The Opposite Parties after deputing a surveyor settle the claim to the tune of Rs.33,347/- as per surveyor report. The Opposite Parties have taken the stand that the loss in question is not covered under the policy.
10.     So far as the question that the loss is not covered under the policy is  concerned, in the terms and conditions Annexure C-5 placed on record by the complainant as per  Section I (v) the insured company is liable to indemnify for the loss caused  by flood, typhoon hurricane, storm, tempest inundation, cyclone, hail storm frost..  The meaning of inundation is pouring of water, cloudburst, deluge, torrent, drencher and flood etc. which can occur when prolonged rain falls over several days or when intense rain falls over a short period of time. Admittedly on the day of incident there was a heavy rain and a lot of water clogged on the roads, meaning thereby it was a flood like situation and it was not a normal rainy day. Therefore, it is clearly proved that the claim of the complainant is duly covered under Section I (v) of the terms and condition of the policy  though they arbitrarily assessed a meager amount towards the claim of the complainant whereas the complainant has paid a huge amount of Rs.2,56,442/- towards the repair of the vehicle in question.
11. The allegations of the Opposite Parties that the complainant himself was ignorant while parking the vehicle and he is faulty of not taking appropriate steps to take care of his vehicle are also not tenable. In our opinion a person who spends a huge amount of his hard earned money to enjoy the luxury car is very well aware that how to take reasonable steps to safeguard  his/her vehicle from any loss or damage. Hence, this plea of the Opposite Parties is rejected. Thus, act of OPs for denying the genuine claim of the complainant proves deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part and as such they are liable to pay the amount incurred by the complainant for the repair of the vehicle in question. 
12. In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly allowed. Opposite Parties are directed as under:-

1. to pay  an amount of Rs.2,56,442/- to the complainant which was spent by him  towards the repair of the vehicle.

 

2. to pay Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;

 

 

3. to pay ₹10,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

 

 

13.      This order be complied with by the Opposite Parties  within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above
14.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Sd/-

[Pawanjit Singh]

President

Sd/-

[Surjeet Kaur] Member