The consumer forum determined that the insurance company acted within its rights by adhering to the surveyor's report, and concluded there was no deficiency in service.

JUDGEMENT

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER

This is a complaint filed against Mercedes Benz India Ltd. and four others alleging deficiency in service. The averments contained in the complaint in brief are stated hereunder:

2. The complainant had purchased a Mercedes Benz E350CDI AVANTGARDE nd diesel car in March 2012 from the showroom of the 2 opposite party, the authorised dealer st of the 1 opposite party by paying a total sum of Rs.60,00,000/-(Rupees Sixty Lakhs only) inclusive of the insurance premium and tax. The vehicle was registered as KL 7 BU 8. The vehicle was insured with the opposite parties 3 and 4 vide policy th No.570100/31/14/6100003974 for the period from 15.03.2015 to 14.03.2016. The 5 opposite party was the Manager in charge of the claims hub of the opposite parties 3 and 4.

3. On 30.06.2015 at about 9 a.m. while the complainant was plying the motor car through Changacherry-Alappuzha Road, from Chakkulathukavu to Kidangara Junction, the driver of the complainant found water on the road on account of flood. Since many vehicles including two wheelers were seen passing through the waterlogged area, the complainant and his driver had decided to proceed ahead. When the car got stuck in a gutter, the engine went off and the car stopped. Since the car got stopped in a waterlogged area, the driver did not attempt to restart the engine. The complainant had immediately contacted the Benz helpline who advised not to start the car and that they would make arrangements to transport the car to the nearest service centre. Since it was a narrow road in order to prevent traffic block, the vehicle was shifted to neutral gear and the car was pushed to the side of the road.

4. The truck despatched by Benz helpline from Kottayam reached the spot. But they were not equipped to transport the vehicle as another truck was required. Such a truck had arrived at the spot by 6p.m. The driver was asked to put the car in neutral gear so that it could be lifted to the truck. When the driver turned the key to switch on the battery, the battery would not come. Another battery was brought from a nearby workshop. With the help of a rented battery, once the key was turned to on position, the gear was changed to nd neutral position and the car was lifted to the truck. The car was transported to the 2 opposite party, the dealer. On inspection, the dealer informed the complainant that the car had sustained damages due to the entry of water into the engine. The car was insured, so the company will indemnify the insured for the loss or damages caused to the vehicle.

5. The survey and verification of the damage was delayed. After repeated requests nd rd to the surveyor, it was clarified to the 2 opposite party that the 3 opposite party would cover the cost of dismantling of the engine. After it was found that water had entered into nd the engine and the service engineer of the 2 opposite party had issued a preliminary estimate of the repair work for Rs.29,27,187/-(Rupees Twenty Nine Lakhs Twenty Seven st nd Thousand One Hundred and Eighty Seven only). The 1 and 2 opposite parties requested rd for the approval for their estimated repair cost. But there was no response from the 3 and 4 th nd opposite parties. The 2 opposite party has offered a cost support of 5% on the removable parts cost as a special onetime goodwill gesture.

6. After a long delay of eight weeks, the 5 opposite party had issued a communication dated 26.08.2015 that in the preliminary survey report it is suggested that the damages to the engine component occurred “only because the driver might have tried to restart the engine even though it stopped due to water entry” and such damage wou