Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Mr. K.S. Chaudhari, P.M.
M/S. FUTURE GENERAL INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. - Appellant
Versus
G. SRIDHAR GOUD - Respondent
First Appeal No. 171 of 2014 (Against the Order dated 20.1.2014 in Complaint No. 70 of 2012 of the State Commission Andhra Pradesh)
Decided on : 01-03-2016
Mr. Abhishek K. Gola, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mrs. Radha, Advocate and Mr. S. Rama Rao, Advocate, for the Respondent
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the coverage and reimbursement of repair expenses under an insurance policy should be determined based on the terms and conditions of the policy, and errors in the assessment of damages and depreciation should be carefully scrutinized.
Headnote:
Insurance - Consumer Complaint - Consumer Protection Act - Section 1, Clause 5 - Section 1, Clause 6
Fact of the Case:
The complainant purchased a car and got it insured. The car suffered damage due to water logging, and the insurance company denied coverage. The State Commission allowed the complaint and directed the insurance company to reimburse the repair expenses.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the damage to the insured vehicle was covered under the terms and conditions of the policy, and the complainant was entitled to reimbursement of repair expenses. The court also noted errors in the surveyor's report and allowed the appeal partly, modifying the State Commission's order.
Issues: Coverage under the insurance policy, assessment of repair expenses, and depreciation on parts were the key issues in the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the damage to the insured vehicle was covered under the policy, and the complainant was entitled to reimbursement of repair expenses. The court also found errors in the surveyor's report regarding depreciation on parts and the cause of the engine damage.
Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed, and the insurance company was directed to reimburse the complainant to the extent of the repair estimate, after deducting permissible depreciation on parts as per the policy's terms and conditions.
ORDER
Mr. K.S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member - This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 20.01.2014 passed by the learned A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (in short, 'the State Commission') in Consumer Complaint No. 70 of 2012 G. Sridhar Goud v. Future General India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. by which, complaint was allowed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Complainant/respondent No. 1 purchased Mercedes Benz Car AP09UFTR 7226 from OP No. 2/Respondent No. 2 and got it insured from OP No. 1/petitioner for a sum of Rs. 39,79,517/-. Warranty card and policy documents were not handed over to the complainant. On 22.8.2011, engine of car got switched of and vehicle stopped near Domalguda, Hyderabad; even though, there was no heavy rain on that day. Intimation was given to OP No. 2, but got no response. It was further submitted that complainant complained to OP about defects in the engine plus system, gear box and vehicle was taken to workshop of OP No. 2 on 23.8.2011 for repair. Complainant being fed up with the defects in the car surrendered vehicle to dealer within eight months of purchase of the car. It was further submitted that OP No. 2 assessed repairs to the tune of Rs. 14,75,652/- whereas, OP No. 1 surveyor recommended loss of Rs. 1,07,012/- which is gross negligence on the part of OP. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before State Commission for direction to pay the sum assured with compensation of Rs. 15,00,000/-. OP No. 1 resisted complaint and submitted that loss caused to the vehicle is not covered under the policy; even then, OP considered claim of labour charges and some spare parts, as per surveyor report. Denying any deficiency on their part prayed for dismissal of complaint. OP No. 2 resisted complaint and submitted that complaint is bad for non-joiner of manufacturer of the car and that the complainant is not a consumer as defined in the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act and this Commission has no jurisdiction to try the dispute as it seem that the car is put to use by the complainant for enhancing his profits in the business conducted by him. The opposite party No. 2 furnished the complainant with warranty card at the time of sale of the car. The opposite party No. 2 submitted that it received complaints of breakdown of the vehicles due to water logging on the same day on which the complainant had towed down the vehicle to its work shop and as per the preliminary version of the complainant, the vehicle was stalled in water logged condition and he started the vehicle while it was in water logged condition. The complainant had not followed the instructions mentioned in the owner's manual and he cannot make claim against the opposite party No. 2. The opposite party No. 2 submitted that the damage caused to the vehicle is beyond the terms of warranty and the opposite party No. 2 could not proceed with the repairs of the vehicle as the opposite party No. 1-insurance company has not given its approval therefor. The second opposite party has given estimate for Rs. 14,35,652/- towards labour charges, consumables and replacement of engine of which some of the items may not be covered by the terms of the insurance policy. The opposite party No. 2 submitted that there was no deficiency in service on its part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. Learned State Commission after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP No. 1 to reimburse amount to the complainant subject to production of receipts relating to repairs of the vehicle and further awarded Rs. 10,000/- as cost of litigation and dismissed complaint against OP No. 2 against which, this appeal has been filed along with application for condonation of delay.
4. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused record.
5. As there is delay of only 14 days in filing appeal, I deem it appropriate to condone delay for the reasons mentioned in the application an
