Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
M. Shreesha, Presiding Member
BAJAJ ALLIANZ INSURANCE CO. LTD. - Appellant
Versus
SUKHBIR KAUR - Respondent
Revision Petition No. 879 of 2013 from Order dated 25.9.2012 in Appeal Nos. 267 & 369 of 2011 of Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula
Decided on : 02-08-2017
Sameer Nandwani, Advocate, for the Appellant; Ms. Sumita Hazarika, Advocate, for the Respondent No. 1; Vipin Singhania, Advocate, for the Respondent No. 2; A.K. Mehta, Advocate, for the Respondent No. 3
The judgment establishes the liability of the Insurance Company for repair expenses in cases of accidental repairs, the requirement of reasonable care by the insured, and the interpretation of warranty coverage and manufacturing defects.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act - Challenge to order allowing appeals by Dealer and Manufacturer - Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act - Summary of Acts and Sections: Consumer Protection Act, Section 21(b) - The court discussed the liability of the dealer, manufacturer, and insurance company under the warranty period and the coverage of accidental repairs. The court also considered the repudiation of the claim by the insurance company and the requirement of reasonable care by the insured. The judgment highlights the interpretation of the warranty period, manufacturing defects, and the liability of the insurance company for accidental repairs.
Fact of the Case:
The Complainant purchased a vehicle covered under warranty, which suffered a breakdown and subsequent damages. The District Forum allowed the complaint in part, directing the Dealer and Manufacturer to pay the Complainant, but the State Commission allowed the appeals of the Dealer and Manufacturer, directing the Insurance Company to pay all repair expenses.
Finding of the Court:
The State Commission found that the vehicle's damages were due to accidental repairs, not a manufacturing defect, and held the Insurance Company liable for the repair expenses. The court also upheld the District Forum's finding of deficiency in service against the Insurance Company.
Issues: The main issue was whether the vehicle's breakdown and subsequent damages were due to a manufacturing defect or accidental repairs, and the liability of the Insurance Company for the repair expenses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the evidence of the breakdown, repair estimates, and investigation reports to determine that the damages were due to accidental repairs, not a manufacturing defect. The court also considered the requirement of reasonable care by the insured and upheld the finding of deficiency in service against the Insurance Company.
Final Decision: The Revision Petition was dismissed, upholding the State Commission's order directing the Insurance Company to pay the repair expenses. The Insurance Company was also directed to pay the awarded amount within a specified time frame.
ORDER
M. Shreesha, Presiding Member—Challenge in this Revision Petition, under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, (in short "the Act"), is to the order dated 25.9.2012, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula (in short "the State Commission"). By the impugned order, the State Commission has allowed the Appeals preferred by the Dealer and the Manufacturer with a direction to the third Opposite Party, namely, the Insurance Company to pay all the expenses incurred by the Complainant on repair of the vehicle.
2. For the sake of convenience, Opposite Party No. 1 is hereinafter referred to as the dealer, Opposite Party No. 2 as the manufacturer and Opposite Party No. 3 as the Insurance Company.
3. The brief facts material to the case, are that the Complainant purchased one Optra Magnum vehicle manufactured by the second Opposite Party for a sum of Rs. 10,15,000 on 29.11.2007 covering a warranty period of two years or 50,000 Kms., whichever is earlier. The vehicle was sold by the Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2, i.e., the dealer and the manufacturer and insured through the third Opposite Party, i.e., Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. under a cashless policy. While so, on 25.2.2008 the complainant's son accompanied by the complainant's driver went to Poonch Village and on their way back, while they were passing through area Bhimber Gali, the vehicle suffered a break down on account of engine seizure and could not move further. Since it was a high terrain area, no help was found. As it was a cantonment area, no mechanic was available and the complainant's son stayed for the night at Bhimber Gali and left the driver behind to look after the car. The next morning, the complainant's son and the driver set out to look for a mechanic but could not find anybody and hence got the vehicle towed from Bhimber Gali to Jammu.
4. It was averred that during the period they left the vehicle to look for some mechanic, some thieves broke open the side window panel and stole the MP3 player music system installed in the car damaging the wiring and the console of the vehicle. It was stated that they had also carried away the tools of the car. While returning from Poonch to Jammu along with the damaged car, the complainant's son lodged an FIR at Manjha Kota Police Station on 26.2.2008 and reported the entire incident. From Jammu, the said vehicle was brought to Opposite Party No. 1, i.e., the dealer at Karnal for repair after towing the same with the help of a vehicle. It was averred that the Works Manager of Opposite Party No. 1 sent a blank claim form and asked the Complainant to sign at the bottom stating that it was required to facilitate the payment of compensation. Acting in good faith, the Complainant put her signatures on the claim form. It was averred that the Complainant was not aware as to what was written in the said claim form. Later, the Complainant came to know that the actual sequence of events was distorted and the Insurance Company was informed that the vehicle was damaged after being hit by a stone. The Complainant requested the Opposite Parties to provide her cashless service and get the vehicle repaired as it was covered under the period of warranty. But as her request was denied by the Opposite Parties, the Complainant was forced to pay an amount of Rs. 5,50,000 to the first opposite party for carrying out the repairs of the vehicle. It was pleaded that as the vehicle in question was under warranty and had not yet covered the distance of 50,000 kms. and the engine got seized within a period of three months from the date of purchase, Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 were under a legal obligation to repair the said car. The Complainant also requested Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 to refund the amount charged by them towards replacement of the engine and carrying out other repairs, but OP failed to respond to the same.
5. The first Opposite Party filed their Written Version denying that th
