2025 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 9883
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
MR.ESWARA RAO NANDAM – Appellant
Versus
M/S.THE NEW INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. – Respondent
SC/33/A/962/2023
IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI BEFORE : PRESIDENT Hon’ble Thiru Justice R. SUBBIAH F.A.NO.962/2023 (Against order in CC.NO.17/2022 on the file of the DCDRC, Chengalpattu)
DATED THIS THE 30th DAY OF OCTOBER 2024 Easwara Rao Nandam S/o. Chinna Venkateshwara Rao Nandam Flat No.201, Wilton -2, Hiranandani Parks Triveni Nagar, Orgadam M/s. S. Karthikei Balan Vadakkuppattu, Kancheepuram Counsel for Tamil Nadu – 603 204 Appellant / Complainant Vs.
1. M/s. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by its Branch Manager 594, ‘Obli Towers’ 1 st Floor D.B.Road, R.S.Puram M/s. Nageswaran & Narichania Coimbatore – 641 002 Counsel for R1 & R3
2. M/s. Sundaram Motors Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Customer Service Consultant South Avenue Road No.80/81, Ambattur Industrial Estate M/s.Dwarakesh Prabhakaran Ambattur, Chennai – 600 058 Counsel for R2
3. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by its by its Managing Director The New India Assurance Building
87, M.G. Road, Fort Mumbai- 400 001 Respondents / Opposite parties The Appellant as complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission against the opposite parties praying for certain direction. The District Commission had dismissed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred by the complainant praying to set aside the order of the District Commission dt.20.7.2023 in CC.No.17/2022.
This appeal is coming before me for hearing finally on 16.8.2024, upon hearing the arguments of the counsel appearing for bothsides and on perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Commission, this commission made the following order:
ORDER
JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH, PRESIDENT
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/ Complainant as against the order dt.20.7.2023 in CC.No.17/2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chengalpattu, in dismissing the complaint.
2. For the sake of convenience, parties shall be referred as per the ranking before the District Commission.
3. The case of the complainant in brief is as follows:
The complainant is one of the directors of M/s. Polymatech Electronics Private Limited. The complainant had purchased the Cuprite Brown colour Mercedes Benz car Model No.MERCEDES BENZ / E-CLASS-E220CDI bearing Chasis No.WDD2120026L027122/65192431129039 and Registration No.TN 07 BT 2700 in the month of December 2012 and had also insured the car by availing the vehicle insurance service from 1st opposite party since 2012. The complainant has renewed the policy on 30.12.2019 vide insurance policy No.72010031190100007224 for the current year of 2020-2021 covering the period from 4.1.2020 to 3.1.2021. Whileso, on Sunday 20.12.2020, between 15.00 hrs to 16.30 hrs, the complainant visited the factory for reviewing progress of New Transformer installation and removal of old transformer, as power was shut down for the whole factory on account of the said replacement work. At that time his car was parked nearby transformer yard within the company premises M/s. Polymatech Electronics Private Limited, when met with an accidental damage by the fall of a transformer when the crane was lifting the transformer. During this replacement operation, his car had sustained heavy damages when a crane sling which was holding the transformer got slipped and fell over his car which was parked in the premises. The complainant had immediately informed about the occurrence of accident, to the 1st opposite party on the same day between 16.20 hrs to 17.00 hrs, and upon their instruction, the complainant moved his vehicle to M/s.Sundaram Motors, service centre on 21.12.2020 to register his insurance claim and subsequently the car was placed there for repairing. The car was duly inspected by one Mr.B.Manoj Kumar, Customer service consultant of M/s. Sundaram Motors and he had estimated the costs of Rs.45,00,000/- for repairing the damaged car of the complainant. One Mr.Suryakumar has been appointed as a surveyor. The surveyor had informed