SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
J.M. Malik, Presiding Member
M/s. Aggcon Equipments International (P) Ltd. —Complainant
versus
IFFCO Tokio Insurance Company Ltd. —Opp.Party
Consumer Case No.639 of 2015
Decided on 4.4.2016

Counsel for the Parties:
For the Complainant:Mr. Rajan Gupta, Advocate with Mr. Heman Gupta & Mr. Siddhant Tyagi, Advocates
For the Opp.Party:Ms. Suman Bagga, Advocate.

IMPORTANT POINT
Soil collapsing is not covered under Commercial Vehicle Package Motor Policy.

Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 21—Insurance—Commercial Vehicle Package Motor Policy—Damage to Deep Drilling Machine—Occurrence due to ground condition and load condition is not covered under motor policy—Case of complainant is not bolstered by any evidence—Delay in reporting matter to insurance company is also pernicious—Complainant did not cooperate with Surveyor fully—Report of manufacturer could have gone a long way to support their weak and stumbling case—There is not even an iota of evidence to show that there is any external or internal damage—No expert’s evidence is forthcoming—Soil collapsing is not covered under policy—Due to lack of evidence case against opposite party does not stand proved—Complaint dismissed. (Paras 11 and 12)

       Result: Complaint dismissed.

       

ORDER

J.M. Malik, Presiding Member—M/s Aggcon Equipments International Pvt. Ltd. is the owner of a maching (MAIT HR180) used for drilling deep boring of foundations and bores in the earth, which was purchased on 13.05.2011. The market value of the said machine is Rs.4,00,00,000/-. The complainant got the above mentioned machine insured from IFFCO TOKIO Insurance Company Ltd.- the Opposite Party, under a Commercial vehicle Tariff (CVT) package Motor policy of miscellaneous and special type of vehicles class D for a sum of Rs.3,04,48,687/- for a period from 09/06/2013 to 08/06/2014. The copy of the Insurance Policy is annexed with the complaint as Annexure-3.

2. On 16.09.2013, the above said machine while drilling on a project at 3C, Sector-100 of Capacite Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. Under Pile Foundation Company met with an accident where damage was caused by soil collapsing whereby the machine drilling shaft got stuck into the earth. The complainant tried its best to retrieve the drilling shaft from 40 meters deep bore and spent lot of money for the same, but the same could not be retrieved. The copies of the photographs at the project site have been placed on the record as Annexure-4 (colly). After the receipt of the information, after the primary survey, appointed M/s Mach Surveyors Pvt. Ltd. to survey and give its report. Mr. H.M. Walia on behalf of the Surveyors Company surveyed the machine.

3. The inquiry was made from Mr. Deshraj, the operator of the said machine, who mentioned that he had done the piling up to 40 meters and when he pulled the lever for lifting, suddenly the soil around the rig caved in and there was a ditch around the machine because of which machine could not do further piling. The surveyor Mack Insurance Surveyors & Loss Assessors (P) Ltd., submitted his final report on 29.10.2013 and did not recommend the claim settlement under the Commercial vehicle package motor policy. It is pertinent that the damage to the machine was due to soil collapsing and not due to any mechanical or internal failure of the machinery. It is alleged that the surveyor has erred in stating the damages are not due to accidental external means. The report of the surveyor has been placed on the record as Annexure-5. There was correspondence and the OP vide its letter dated 06.11.2013 and 28.11.2013 to the complainant, denied any legal liability to pay towards the claim settlement. Copy of the above mentioned letters are annexed as Annexures -6 to 9.

4. The complainant had no other option but to request the Insurance Regulatory Development Authority (IRDA) to intervene and appoint another surveyor under Section 64 UM (3) of Insurance Act 1938 vide letter dated 12.12.2013. On 11.02.2014, IRDA asked the Opposite Party to provide documents/information for examination by the Insurance Development Regulatory Authority. The copy of the letter is annexed as Annexure-11. Thereafter, the complainant apprised IRDA of getting the opinion of an independent surveyor Mr. C.K. Bhatia. Mr. C.K. Bhatia inspected the machine and reported that the “sudden collapse of the soil into the drilled pile hole is clearly accidental and also external means”. He concluded that the claim is very much payable. The copies of his opinion and report are annexed as Annexures-14 & 15. The complainant sent reminders to IRDA but it suggested that due to contradictory reports the matter should be taken to this Commission vide letters, copies of which have been annexed as Annexures 16 , 17 & 18. Ultimately, the present consumer complaint was filed with the following prayers:-

“a) An order directing the opposite party to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.1,02,34,313/- being the amount of loss assessed by the surveyor and to which the opposite party is liable under the contract of insurance.

b) An amount of Rs.1,25,00,000/- for non-usage of the machine since 2013. Furthermore Rs.10,00,000/- has been spent on trying to retrieve the machine and minimize the losses.

c) Interest fr

























































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top