Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/30/2017

Future Generali India Insurance Company Limited - Complainant(s)

Versus

Davinder Bindal - Opp.Party(s)

Rajesh K Sharma, Adv.

17 May 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Appeal No.	:	30 of 2017
Date of Institution	:	20.02.2017
Date of Decision	:	17.05.2017

 

Future Generali India Insurance Company Limited, 2^nd and 3^rd Floors, SCO No.78-79, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh, through its Authorized Officer Sh.Dinesh Jhalani, Deputy Manager-Legal Claims, Future Generali India Insurance Company Limited, 2^nd and 3^rd Floors, SCO No.78-79, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh.

……Appellant/Opposite Party

V e r s u s

Davinder Bindal S/o Sh. Shiv Kumar Bindal, C/o Tirupati Medipack, Suketi Road Kala Amb Tehsil Nahan, Sirmour, Himachal Pradesh – 173005.

         ....Respondent/Complainant

 

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

BEFORE: JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

                MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

 

Argued by:  Sh.Rajesh K.Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.

Sh.Pavinder Singh Bedi, Advocate for the respondent.

 

PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

                This appeal is directed against an order dated 19.12.2016, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the Forum only), vide which, it accepted consumer complaint bearing no.344 of 2016 filed by the respondent and granted following relief in his favour and against the appellant:-

“[a]  Pay the balance amount of Rs.1,32,913.35/- to the Complainant;    

 [b]  Pay Rs.15,000/- on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and physical harassment to the Complainant; 

                [c] Pay Rs.7,000/- towards costs of litigation.”

                Failure to comply with the directions given, was to entail penal interest.

2.         The facts in brief are that the complainant got his  vehicle make Mitsubishi Pajero bearing Regn. No. HR-06P-0029 insured from the appellant, valid for the period from 21.09.2013 to 20.09.2014. During currency of the aforesaid policy, on 25.06.2014, the said vehicle caught fire and was extensively damaged. The respondent got DDR registered with the Police, stating the above fact. Intimation was also given to the appellant, which deputed B & S Loss Assessors/Surveyor to assess the loss caused to the vehicle, in the said fire. As per report Annexure R-2, the Surveyor allowed the claim, to the tune of Rs.40,531/- only, against bill of Rs.1,73,444/- prepared by Premier Motor Garage, Panchkula, the repairer. He didn’t allow claim on account of burnt wiring. Amount of Rs.40,531/- was got deposited by the appellant, in the account of the respondent directly, without his permission. When request of the respondent, reimbursing the entire amount spent on repair of his vehicle, failed to yield any result, he filed a consumer complaint before the Forum.
3.         Upon notice, reply was filed by the appellant, wherein, factual matrix of the case qua incident of fire in the vehicle; intimation regarding the said incident; referral of matter to the Surveyor for assessment of loss, were not denied. It was admitted that the said Surveyor assessed actual loss to the tune of Rs.40,531/- and the said amount was released in favour of the respondent. It was specifically stated that in view of terms and conditions of the policy, the respondent was not entitled to relief of any further amount. Remaining averments were denied being wrong.
4.         In the rejoinder filed, the respondent reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in the written version of appellant.
5.         The parties led evidence in support of their case and after going through the same, the Forum allowed the complaint in favour of the respondent, as referred to in opening para of this order.
6.         Hence this appeal.
7.         We have heard Counsel for the parties and have perused the evidence and record of the case very carefully. 
8.         By making reference to the terms and conditions of the policy document, Counsel for the appellant made an attempt to say that report submitted by the Surveyor was correct. Loss caused on account of breakdown of the vehicle was not covered, as per terms and conditions of the policy, as such, it was rightly rejected by the Surveyor.
9.         To the contrary, it was submitted by Counsel for the respondent that the said terms and conditions are not available on record and reimbursement towards loss caused cannot be denied, on account of the said conditions. Similar issue was also raised before the Forum. However, it didn’t find favour with the Forum, and while rejecting that plea, following observations were made in favour of the respondent:-

“The main grievance of the Complainant is that his claim towards the insured vehicle was partly paid by the Opposite Party. The Complainant has urged that he was only paid Rs.40,531/- whereas, he had spent an amount of Rs.1,73,444/ for the repairs of the vehicle in question to M/s Premier Motor Garage vide Bill dated 19.08.2014 (Annexure-B). The sole contention of the Opposite Party is that the Surveyor & Loss Assessor had assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.40,531/- only, which stood paid to the Complainant.

 There is no dispute about the fact that the Complainant had spent an amount of Rs.1,73,444/- on the repair of the vehicle in question and the Opposite Party failed to provide him the Surveyor Report, in order to know on what basis he had made the assessment of loss for just Rs.40,531/-. After meticulously going through the Surveyor Report (Annexure R-2) produced on record by the Opposite Party, we find that the observations made by the Surveyor in his report is without any basis, in as much as, the Surveyor has not given any reasoning for his observations made in the said report. We are of the opinion that the car caught the fire as a result of which the wires also got burnt, thus the observation of the Surveyor that a short circuiting in the wiring has triggered the fire appears to be illogical and cannot be relied upon. Hence, the action of the Opposite Party in allowing part payment only, relying blindly on the Surveyor Report, is not wholly justified, and the balance amount of Rs.1,32,913.35/- needs to be paid to the Complainant.” 

10.         Before dealing with the issue further, it is necessary to reproduce relevant portion of report submitted by the Surveyor, by taking note of which, major part of the claim was declined, it reads thus”-

“2. At the time of survey it is observed that front left side is burnt. Wiring has melted. It is evident that a short-circuiting in the wiring has triggered this fire. Causing damages to components of engine compartment of the insured car.

3. The insured has been clearly apprised that the replacements have been allowed keeping in view the extent of damages relating to the cause and nature of accident. The short circuiting in wiring has caused the fire in the engine compartment. The faulty wiring being cause of loss is not assessed in report.”

 

11.         We have looked into the entire record and are of the opinion that without any basis/evidence, whatsoever, the Surveyor has wrongly stated that the faulty wiring of the vehicle was the cause of fire incident. No evidence has been referred to, in that regard. Damage was caused on account of fault which occurred during operation of the vehicle. In view of above, we can safely say that the report of the Surveyor was rightly rejected by the Forum.
12.         To support above said report, the appellant has placed reliance on following condition, annexed with the policy:-

“The company shall not be liable to make any payment in respect of:

1. Consequential loss, depreciation, wear and tear, mechanical or electrical breakdown, failure or breakage.
2. ……..”.

 

13.         It was argued that the mechanical or electrical breakdown is not covered under the policy. The said plea cannot be accepted for two reasons. Firstly, the terms and conditions, on which, reliance has been placed, are not available on record of the Forum. At the time of arguments, Counsel for the appellant made an attempt to show us that document. However, at this stage, it is not possible for this Commission, to look into the same. Furthermore, accidental fire cannot be termed as vehicle breakdown.

                Otherwise also, we have held in earlier part of this order, that there is no proof that fire was caused on account of short circuiting, as alleged by the Surveyor. No evidence, in the shape of photographs etc. has been placed on record, to support above said contention. As such, no ground, whatsoever, has been made by the appellant, to make interference in the order under challenge.

14.         No other point was urged by Counsel for the parties.
15.         For the reasons record above, the appeal being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands dismissed, with no order as to costs. The order passed by the Forum is upheld.
16.         Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
17.         The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

17.05.2017

Sd/-

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(DEV RAJ)

MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(PADMA PANDEY)

        MEMBER

Rg.