State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mohan Lal Daga vs Manager, Icici, Lombard General ... on 23 August, 2011
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
PANDRI, RAIPUR
(A/10/2243)
Appeal No. 733/2010
Instituted on 10.12.10
Mohan Lal Daga, S/o Late Shri Surajratan Daga,
R/o: Arang Bada, Halwai Line, Raipur,
Tah. & Dist. RAIPUR (C.G.) ... Appellant.
Vs.
Manager, ICICI, Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Lalganga Shopping Mall,
RAIPUR (C.G.) ... Respondent.
PRESENT: -
HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI S.C. VYAS, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE SMT. VEENA MISRA, MEMBER
HON'BLE SHRI V.K.PATIL, MEMBER COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES: -
Shri Vibhash Tiwari, for appellant.
Shri Sanjay Tiwari, for respondent.
ORAL ORDER Dated: 23/08/2011 PER: - HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI S. C. VYAS, PRESIDENT This appeal is directed against the order dated 08.11.2010 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (hereinafter called "District Forum" for short) in Complaint Case No.92/2010, whereby the complaint of the appellant herein has been partly allowed and the respondent Insurance Company has been directed to pay Rs.17,978/- to the appellant/complainant along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint and also to pay cost of litigation Rs.1,000/- on account of damages to the insured vehicle in an incident of fire.
// 2 //
2. In nutshell the facts of the case are that the vehicle bearing No.CG 04 H 5494, is of the registered ownership of the complainant, which was insured by the respondent / Insurance Company under a comprehensive insurance policy for a period between 19.04.2009 to 18.04.2010. That vehicle indica car suffered an incident of fire on 19.07.2009 all of a sudden, when it was in motion in Shastri Market, Raipur. Police was intimated and then claim form was filed before the Insurance Company. The appellant was to spend Rs.51,753/-, on repairing of the vehicle, but the Insurance Company illegally repudiated the claim, so consumer complaint was filed.
3. Before the District Forum, the defence of the Insurance Company was that incident happened on account of mechanical breakdown in the vehicle resulting in fire in some electrical equipment and so it comes under the exclusion clause of the insurance policy and so the Insurance Company was not liable to pay any compensation.
4. Learned District Forum, after having considered the material available before it and also report of the Surveyor, Shri Surendra Umale, allowed the claim of the complainant against the respondent Insurance Company to the extent of assessment made by the Surveyor. Feeling aggrieved by that order, the complainant has come up before us by way of this appeal, for enhancement of the awarded amount.
// 3 //
5. We have heard arguments advanced by both parties and perused record of the District Forum.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant/complainant submitted that repairs, which was done by Bhasin Motors, were all relating to the damages caused to the insured vehicle in the incident of fire and therefore the entire amount, which was paid by the appellant/complainant to the repairer was payable under the insurance cover obtained by the appellant/ complainant, whereas counsel for the respondent / Insurance Company submitted that as per the terms of the policy, the claim was not payable, as it was coming in the exclusion clause of the insurance policy, under which on account of breakdown, if some electrical part of the insured article suffered damages, then that comes in the category of exclusion of the policy, but he has agreed that apart from the damage to that particular part on account of fire, if some damages were caused to some other parts of the insured vehicle, then the Insurance Company may be held liable.
7. Thus from the arguments advanced by counsel for the respondent and from the terms of the policy as well as policy document, it is clear that the insurance cover provided by the Insurance Company, IMT 24, was made applicable according to which unless additional premium is paid, the electrical / electronic fittings // 4 // are excluded from insurance cover, if the damage to them, was on account of any mechanical or electrical breakdown. We take note of this fact that additional premium for electrical and electronic accessories was paid, while the package policy was obtained. In view of this clause, only that particular electrical part is excluded and not entire insured vehicle. It was necessary for both parties to show as to from which part of the vehicle, the fire started on account of electrical or mechanical breakdown and then it was required to be assessed by the Surveyor as to what amount would be payable to the insured, after deducting the amount of damage to that particular electric part & for the remaining vehicle keeping in mind the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.
8. We find that neither the Surveyor has done this exercise nor the complainant has filed any affidavit of the repairer to show that from which electrical or electronic part of the insured vehicle, the fire was originated and what was the cost of the repairing of that particular part. It was also required to be shown that repairing / replacement which were carried out by him, were necessary and were on account of damage to the vehicle in the incident of fire and Surveyor also in his report without giving any detail, simply mentioned the name of the parts, which were noted by him as damaged and then without assigning any reason for disallowing the claim regarding a particular // 5 // part, his statement in tabular form says simply that 8 parts have burnt and allowed 50% depreciation on most of the parts excluding front wind screen glass and also deducted labour charges without assigning any reason, so the report of the Surveyor was defective.
9. In view of aforesaid, a further probe in the matter is necessary by the District Forum. Therefore the appeal is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the case is remanded back to the District Forum with a direction to provide opportunity to both parties for filing additional evidence in the light of the aforesaid discussion and then to decide the matter afresh. Parties are directed to appear before the District Forum on 26.09.2011.
(Justice S.C. Vyas) (Smt. Veena Misra) (V.K. Patil)
President Member Member
/08/2011 /08/2011 /08/2011