Back
ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HYDERABAD
GOPALAKRISHNA TAMADA, PRESIDENT, T. ASHOK KUMAR, MEMBER
Power Mech Projects Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
National Insurance Co. Ltd. - Respondent
F.A. No. 109 of 2014
Decided on : 18-11-2014
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Sai Gangadhar Chamarty, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. M. Ramgopal Reddy, Advocate.
The liability of an Insurance Company does not arise unless it is established that the incident was a mechanical breakdown.
Headnote:
MECHANICAL BREAKDOWN - INSURANCE CLAIM - The court held that the non-movement of the front wheel, which caused the tilting of the trailer and resulting damages to the truck, cannot be considered a mechanical breakdown. The liability of the Insurance Company does not arise unless it is established that the incident was a mechanical breakdown.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant filed a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act claiming an amount for damages to their vehicle, which was insured with the opposite party. The Insurance Company repudiated the claim, stating that the tilting of the vehicle was not due to a mechanical breakdown.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the non-movement of the front wheel, leading to the tilting of the trailer and damages to the truck, cannot be considered a mechanical breakdown. It held that unless it is established as a mechanical breakdown, the liability of the Insurance Company does not arise.
Issues: Whether the non-movement of the front wheel, causing the tilting of the trailer and damages to the truck, can be considered a mechanical breakdown?
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the incident cannot be considered a mechanical breakdown unless it is established as such, and therefore, the liability of the Insurance Company does not arise.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the order passed by the District Forum, and found no merits in the appeal.
JUDGMENT :
1. The complainant by name M/s. Power Mech Projects Limited approached the District Forum at Vijayawada and filed the complaint U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act claiming an amount of Rs.3,29,801/- being the cost of damage with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of repudiation till realization and also to pay compensation of Rs.40,000/- with costs.
2. The brief facts that led to the filing of the said complaint by the complainant are that it is the owner of the vehicle bearing No.MH 06N 6594 (HGV) and the same was insured with the opposite party under Comprehensive Policy No.552501/31/636500000195 for the period covering from 2.6.2012 to 1.6.2013. On 7.6.2012 in the evening when the said truck loaded with TG unit was negotiating turn suddenly the front wheel got stuck and thereby the vehicle could not be controlled and the trailor got tilted towards right side and the load fell onto resulting damages. The same was informed to the opposite party Insurance Company who in turn deputed an independent surveyor, who visited the spot and assessed the damages at Rs.2,93,000/-. The complainant got the vehicle repaired by incurring an amount of Rs.3,29,801/-. On the basis of the report furnished by the said surveyor, wherein the surveyor opined that the said tilting of the vehicle was not on account of any mechanical break down, the Insurance Company repudiated the claim of the complainant. In those circumstances, the said complaint was lodged by the complainant before the District Forum.
3. On notice, the opposite party i.e. M/s.National Insurance Company Limited entered appearance and filed a detailed written version. In the written version a stand has been taken by the opposite party stating that the said tilting of the vehicle was not on account of any mechanical break down for the reason that even according to the complainant the front wheel got stuck and thereby the vehicle could not be controlled and thus the trailor got tilted towards the right side resulting damages to the truck. According to the opposite party, when there is a mechanical break down the liability comes into existence and when it was because of the non-movement of the front wheel it cannot be said that it is a mechanical break down and in those circumstances the said repudiation is justified.
4. During the course of hearing, one Mr. P. Chandra Mohan, Executive of the complainant filed an affidavit on behalf of the complainant and the Senior Divisional Manager of the Insurance Company filed an affidavit on behalf of the opposite party. Exs.A.1 to A.5 were marked on behalf of the complainant and similarly Exs.B.1 to B.14 were marked on behalf of the opposite party. Having considered the entire material on record, the District Forum came to a conclusion that the repudiation made by the opposite party is justified and there is no need to compensate the complainant and accordingly dismissed the said complaint.
5. The said order dated 31.1.2014 is under challenge before us.
Heard. So far as the facts are concerned there is no dispute with regard to the policy that has been taken by the complainant and the tilting of the vehicle, etc. The only point that falls for consideration is as to whether the non-movement of front wheel i.e. getting stuck up of front wheel, on account of which the trailor tilted resulting damages to the truck, can be said to be a mechanical break down or not? In our considered view the said stuck up of the front wheel, on account of which tilting of the trailor occurred, cannot be said to be a mechanical break down. A vehicle gets stuck up on account of various circumstances. In fact in the affidavit filed on behalf of the complainant no specific mention is made that there was loose soil on the ground or road at the place of the accident on account of which the front wheel of the vehicle got stuck up. In our considered view the said stuck up of the front wheel may be a vis-majeure and it cannot be said that it is on account of a mech
