Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/14/661

New Idea Farm Equipment Co. - Complainant(s)

Versus

United India Ins.Co.Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

R.V.Mehra

30 Nov 2021

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 661 dated 18.09.2014.                                                        Date of decision: 30.11.2021. 

 

M/s. New Idea Farm Equipment Co., Giaspura Road, Post Office Dhandari Kalan, Ludhiana through one of its partners Sh. Vimal Gupta.                                                                                                                  ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1. United India Insurance Company Ltd., Link Road, Near Palk Restaurant, Ludhiana through its Branch Manager.
2. United India Insurance Company Ltd., Service Hub, Surya Towers, 3^rd Floor, 108, The Mall, Ludhiana.
3. Sh. S.S. Gupta, Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd., Service Hub, Surya Towers, 3^rd Floor, 108, The Mall, Ludhiana.
4. Er. Jagdish Singh Sangha, H. No.40-B, Rishi Nagar, Ludhiana.                                                                                               …..Opposite parties 

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. R.V. Mehra, Advocate.

For OP1 to OP3             :         Sh. D.R. Rampal, Advocate.

For OP4                         :         Exparte.

 

ORDER

PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

1.                Succinctly put, the case of the complainant is that the complainant is the owner of Honda Accord car bearing registration No.PB10-BD-5621. The car was got insured from the OP1 and OP2 vide policy No.201102/31/12/01/00003964 dated 01.10.2012. On 24.07.2013. the car suffered damage due to flooding and heavy rains when it was being driven in the vicinity of Ghumar Mandi, Ludhiana. The car was got towed to Tagore Nagar, Ludhiana. The complainant lodged a claim with OP1 vide letter dated 25.07.2013. Instead of reimbursing the claim, the OPs demanded flood confirmation certificate from any local authority. In the meantime, OP1 and OP2 deputed Sh. J.S. Sangha, Surveyor i.e. OP4 to assess the loss who inspected the vehicle and took photographs also. On the advise of OP4, the vehicle was taken to M/s. Prestige Honda for repairs. OP2 in its email dated 14.08.2013 wrongly alleged that the vehicle was shifted to workshop after a number of days and no information was given to the surveyor and the surveyor was not given an opportunity to take photographs of the vehicle. In fact, M/s. Raj Towing Service towed the vehicle to M/s. Lally Motors (P) Ltd., Dhandari Kalan, Ludhiana on 30.07.2013 and raised a bill of Rs.1500/-. This fact was duly intimated to OP4. On 29.07.2013, OP4 was further informed that the vehicle was being shifted to M/s. Lally Motors Pvt. Ltd., Dhandari Kalan, Ludhiana. On 31.07.2013, M/s. M/s. Lally Motors Pvt. Ltd. prepared estimate sheet of the vehicle and the final invoice. On 01.08.2013, the complainant made calls to OP4 requesting him to visit M/s. Lally Motors Pvt. Ltd. and take photographs of the vehicle, who in turn, informed the complainant that he had already visited M/s. Lally Motors Pvt. Ltd. OP4 further advised that the car be got dismantled. On 02.08.2013, M/s. Lally Motors Pvt. Ltd. through email sought the approval of the complainant to start the job of dismantling the car. The claim has been rejected on the ground that for 13 days, the car remained parked at the residence of the complainant and the OP4 was informed only after the car had been dismantled is absolutely wrong. Therefore, the rejection of the claim by OP1 vide letter dated 19.09.2013 cannot be said to be justified. In the end, it has been requested that OP1 and OP4 are liable to pay a sum Rs.2,50,000/- on account of expenses incurred by the complainant for getting the car repaired and further be made to pay towing charges of Rs.1500/-, Rs.99,490/- on account of repair and Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation.

2.                Upon notice, OP4 did not appear despite service and was proceeded against exparte.  

3.                The complaint has been resisted by the OP1 to OP3. In the written statement filed on behalf of OP1 to OP3, it has been, inter alia, pleaded that vide email dated 14.08.2013, the complainant was rightly informed that he had failed to complete the requisite formalities which are required by the surveyor for settlement of the claim. It has also been denied that the factum of shifting the vehicle to M/s. Lally Motors Pvt. Ltd. was intimated to OP4. According to OP1, the complainant gave intimation of loss on 25.07.2013 . Therefore, the surveyor J.S. Sangha was deputed to assess the loss. The surveyor visited the house of the complainant at Tagore Nagar on 26.07.2013 and took photographs fo the car. Vimal Kumar Gupta had brought the vehicle at his residence on 24.07.2013. On 27.07.2013, he has submitted an empty claim form and informed the surveyor that Honda Dealer has estimate the repair at Rs.1,50,000/- while local mechanic estimated the repair at Rs.50,000/-. On 09.08.2013, the surveyor was informed that he vehicle had been taken to authorized dealer workshop and its engine has been dismantled. The surveyor visited the dealer and took photographs of the dismantled engine. The engine block and crank shaft have already been sent to the market for repair without showing to the surveyor. On 13.08.2013, the block and crank shaft were brought from the market after its repair. On 13.08.2013, the surveyor took photographs. On 14.08.2013, the clutch plates and pressure plates were shown to have been damaged due to water. The surveyor took photographs on31.08.2013 and after flushing/cleaning the vehicle thoroughly, examined the engine. As a matter of fact, the car was moved in heavy rain at Ghumar Mandi Chowk where the water was more than one feet on the road. The car’s resonator sucked the water in place of air which entered the engine and the engine got hydrostatic lock and stopped. Thus, the loss to the engine was caused due to negligence of the complainant who knowingly took the vehicle in rain and damaged the crank connected rod, piston, piston rings and engine block. On receipt of the survey report dated 18.09.2013, OP1 to OP3 scrutinized the claim and found that since the loss had taken place due to negligence on the part of the complainant, it was treated as no claim. The rest of the allegations made in the complaint have been denied as wrong and in the end, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.

4.                In evidence, the complainant tendered her affidavit as Ex. CA, affidavit Ex. CB of Sh. Davinder Singh along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C22,  Ex. CW2/1 and closed the evidence.

5.                On the other hand, the counsel for OPs tendered affidavit Ex. RA of Sh. Vir Bharat Singh, Manager of OPs along with documents Ex. R1 to Ex. R38 and closed the evidence.

6.                We have heard the counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record very carefully.

7.                The claim in this case has been rejected on the ground that the loss to the vehicle took place due to negligence on the part of the complainant as he knowingly took the car into flooded area where there was water of more than one feet on the road. Secondly, the car was taken firstly to the residence of the complainant and then to the workshop without prior intimation to the OPs and the surveyor appointed by them, with the result that the surveyor could not do his job and also could not take even photographs of the car. The counsel for the OP1 to OP3 has referred to clause 4 of the policy which provides that the insured shall take all reasonable steps  to safeguard the vehicle from loss or damage and to maintain it in efficient condition and the company shall have at all times free and full access to examine the vehicle or any part thereof or any driver or employee of the insured and further in the event of any accident or breakdown, the vehicle shall not be left unattended without proper precautions being taken to prevent further damage or loss and if the vehicle be driven before the necessary repairs are effected, any extension of the damage or any further damage  shall be entirely at the insured’s own risk.

8.                We have thoughtfully considered the above contentions raised by the counsel for OP1 to OP3, but found the same to be without any substance. It is a matter of common knowledge that when it is raining and a person is driving the car, he does not intentionally take the car into water logged areas. An element of chance is involved in case of heavy rains. Therefore, simply because the car happened to break down at the place on the flooded road due to heavy rains, it cannot be said to be the negligence on the part of the complainant. Secondly, the complainant could not have afforded to leave the car at the spot. As per the case of the complainant, the car suffered damage due to flooding on the road on 24.07.2013 and the complainant lodged a claim on 25.07.2013. This fact has not been specifically denied by the OPs.

9.                Second contention raised by the counsel for OP1 to OP3 that the car was taken to the residence of the complainant where it remained parked for days together and further that the car was not to be taken from the place it was damaged to the residence of the complainant without information to the surveyor. Even these contentions are not tenable considering the fact that in para no.2 of the complaint, it has been categorically alleged that the complainant lodged claim on 25.07.2013 and this fact has not been specifically denied in the written statement. It has further been alleged that in their email dated 14.08.2013, the OPs acknowledged that the intimation to them was given on 27.07.2013 and this fact again has not been denied by the OPs. If the information of the loss was given to the OPs on 25.07.2013 i.e. the very next day, then the onus stood shifted to the OPs to take prompt action and the surveyor should have been deputed immediately to assess the loss. In the given circumstances, the complainant cannot be found to be at fault if the vehicle kept standing at his residence for days together despite the fact that the intimation to the OPs was given on the very next day. In survey report Ex. R7, it has been mentioned that the surveyor visited the house of the complainant on 26.07.2013 and took photographs of the vehicle. It is further mentioned in the survey report that on 09.08.2013, he was informed that the vehicle has been taken to authorized dealer workshop and its engine had been dismantled. It is strange as to what the surveyor kept doing for so many days after taking the photographs on 26.07.2013. The surveyor had to get the loss assessed and refer the car for repairs to an appropriate authorized dealer. Therefore, in our considered view, the complainant cannot be penalized for acts and conducts of the surveyor, who is out to put the blame on the complainant. Under the given circumstances, it would be just and proper if the OP1 to OP3 are directed to process and reimburse the claim after getting the loss assessed from the surveyor within a period of 40 days and OP1 to OP3 be further made to pay Rs.8,000/- as composite compensation to the complainant.

10.              As a result of above discussion, the complaint is allowed with an order that the OP1 to OP3 shall process and reimburse the claim of the complainant after getting the loss assessed from the surveyor within period of 40 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. OP1 to OP3 shall further pay a composite compensation of Rs.8,000/- (Rupees Eight Thousand only) to the complainant. The compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. However, the complaint as against OP4 is dismissed. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

11.              Due to rush of work and spread of COVID-19, the case could not be decided within statutory period.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:30.11.2021.

Gobind Ram.