National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Bharati Axa General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Chandra Mohan Goyal on 5 February, 2015
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO.4504 OF 2014 (From the order dated 27-10-2014 in FA No.1397 of 2014 of the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Chandigarh) WITH I.A.NO.9064 OF 2014 (For stay) Bharati Axa General Insurance Co. Ltd. Having one of its offices at Mercantile House 7th Floor, 15, Kastruba Gandhi Marg Connaught Place New Delhi ..Petitioner Versus Chandra Mohan Goyal Prop. M/s. Triveni Chemical & Industries New Grain Market Kotkapura Punjab ..Respondent BEFORE: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER For the petitioners : Mr. Navneet Kumar, Advocate 05-01-2015 ORDER
JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)
1. The complainant/respondent took a motor vehicle policy from the petitioner company in respect of Hyundai i20 car for the period from 21-11-2010 to 20-11-2011. In July 2011 the complainant went to Vrindavan. During the course of journey he parked his vehicle at about 4:00 PM due to heavy rain. The vehicle got covered with water upto 2 ft. level. When the water level receded the complainant called up the call centre of the petitioner company and the vehicle was taken to the authorized workshop of the company M/s Sheel Hyundai at Mathura. Since cashless repair of the vehicle was denied to the complainant he had to engage a truck and carried the vehicle to Ludhiana paying a sum of Rs.8,020/-. The vehicle was got repaired by the complainant from M/s. M.R.G. Auto Pvt. Ltd. at the cost of Rs.98,090/-.
2. When the vehicle was parked in the premises of M/s. M.R.G. Auto Pvt. Ltd. it was inspected by a surveyor appointed by the petitioner company namely Mr. Vijay Negi. The surveyor assessed the loss to the complainant at Rs.13,950/- which comprised only cleaning and few parts which were stated to have been damaged directly due to water. It was stated in the report of the surveyor that only those parts which were damaged due to direct contact of water were assessed and the parts which were not damaged due to water were not admissible as per the policy condition and, therefore, were not assessed. Vide letter dated 19-03-2012 the insurance company restricted the claim to Rs.13,950/- on the following grounds:
We are in receipt of your letter dated 23-02-2012. Would like to draw your attention towards condition No.4 of the policy which states as follows The insured shall take all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from loss or damage and to maintain it in efficient condition and the company shall have at all times free and full access to examine the vehicle or any part thereof or any driver or employee of the insured. In the event of any accident or breakdown, the vehicle shall not be left unattended without proper precautions being taken to prevent further damage or loss and if the vehicle be driven before the necessary repairs are effected any extension of the damage or any further damage to the vehicle shall be entirely at the insureds own risk.
As per Survey Report, damages of engine and internal parts is an extension of loss and same are not covered as per policy terms and conditions as cited above and only first hand damages by water while the vehicle was parked in parking are covered under policy terms and net liability assessed by the surveyor is for Rs.13,950/-.
Once again you are requested to provide us discharge voucher duly filled and signed for Rs.13,950/- enable us to proceed further. For details of assessment you may visit us any time at our Ludhiana office.
3. Being aggrieved from the failure of the petitioner company to pay the amount spent by him on the repair of the vehicle and its being taken from Mathura to Ludhiana the complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a complaint.
4. The complaint was resisted by the petitioner company primarily on the same ground on which the claim was restricted to Rs.13,950/-
5. Vide its order dated 07-08-2014 the District Forum directed the insurance company to settle the claim by paying the claim of the complainant on the basis of the bills submitted by him within 30 days failing which they were to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of lodging of the claim till its payment. The insurance company was also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- as the cost of litigation.
6. Being aggrieved from the order of the District Forum the insurance company approached the State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal having been dismissed by the State Commission vide impugned order dated 27-10-2014, the insurance company is before us by way of this revision petition.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner company has produced before us a literature which to the extent relied upon reads as under:
Symptoms and damage If an engine hydrolocks while at speed, a mechanical failure is likely. Common damage modes include bent or broken connecting rods, a fractured head, a fractured block, crankcase damage, damaged bearings, or any combination of these. Forces absorbed by other interconnected components may cause additional damage. Physical damage to metal parts can manifest as a "crashing" or "screeching" sound and usually requires replacement of the engine or a substantial rebuild of its major components.
If an internal combustion engine hydrolocks while idling or under low power conditions, the engine may stop suddenly with no immediate damage. In this case the engine can often be purged by unscrewing the spark plugs or injectors and spinning the engine to expel the liquid from the combustion chambers and then restarted. Depending on how the liquid was introduced to the engine, it possibly can be restarted and dried out with normal combustion heat, or it may require more work, such as flushing out corrupted operating fluids and replacing damaged gaskets.
If a cylinder fills with liquid while the engine is turned off, the engine will refuse to turn when a starting cycle is attempted. Since the starter mechanism's torque is normally much lower than the engine's operating torque and momentum this will usually not damage the engine but may burn out the starter. The engine can be drained as above and restarted. If a corrosive substance such as water has been in the engine long enough to cause rusting, more extensive repairs will be required.
Amounts of water significant enough to cause hydrolock tend to upset the air/fuel mixture in gasoline engines. If water is introduced slowly enough, this effect can cut power and speed in an engine to a point that when hydrolock actually occurs it does not cause catastrophic engine damage.
Causes and special cases Automotive Hydrolock most commonly occurs in automobiles when driving through floods, either where the water is above the level of the air intake or the vehicle's speed is excessive, creating a tall bow wave. A vehicle fitted with a cold air intake mounted low on the vehicle will be especially vulnerable to hydrolocking when being driven through standing water or heavy precipitation. Engine coolant entering the cylinders through various means (such as a blown head gasket) is another common cause. Excessive fuel entering (flooding) one or more cylinders in liquid form due to abnormal operating conditions can also cause hydrolock.
8. The learned counsel has also relied upon the reply dated 22-10-2013 sent by IRDA under RTI Act, stating therein that generally insurance companies charge extra premium to provide add on cover for hydro static loss in a motor vehicle policy.
9. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner-company is that since the major damage to the vehicle occurred on account of hydro static loss and they had not charged extra premium in order to cover the said loss while issuing the policy to the insured, they are not liable to pay for the damage on account of hydro static loss to the vehicle.
10. We have perused the insurance policy issued by the petitioner-company to the complainant. The said policy while covering damage due to flood, cyclone, hailstorm, etc., does not exclude the loss to the vehicle due to hydro static lock. In the absence of such an exclusion, the insurance company will have to reimburse cost of repair of the vehicle on account of damage by heavy rains and flooding irrespective of whether the said loss occurred due to hydro static lock or for some other reason. If despite IRDA permitting charging of an extra premium for reimbursement in respect of loss due to hydro static lock the petitioner-company did not charge such a premium, it is only itself to blame for such a situation because the policy issued by it while granting insurance against damage due to flooding, etc., did not exclude the loss/damage to the vehicle on account of the aforesaid reason. Therefore, in our opinion, in a damage of this nature, unless expressly excluded, in the insurance policy, damage to the vehicle on account of hydro static lock would also be covered for the purpose of reimbursement. For this reason alone the petitioner-company must necessarily fail.
11. Even otherwise we find that there is no evidence of damages, which the surveyor excluded for the purpose of reimbursement, having been caused on account of hydro static lock. Neither the surveyor has stated so in his report nor has the insurance company filed any opinion/report from an automobile engineer or from the workshop where the vehicle was repaired to prove that the damage which it was not ready to pay had occurred on account of hydro static lock. This is yet another reason for which the insurance company has to fail.
12. The learned counsel for the insurance company submits that the company would be liable to reimburse the insured only for the loss/damage which are covered under the insurance policy. There is no dispute with respect to the aforesaid proposition but in the case before us we find that loss by flood, typhoon, hurricane, storm, inundation, cyclone, hailstorm, etc., is specifically covered under the policy. Since as per the literature provided by the petitioner the hydro static lock happens when water enters the engine of the vehicle, any damage on account of hydro static lock in our opinion would be covered under the aforesaid clause, unless expressly excluded in the insurance policy.
13. For the reasons stated hereinabove we find no merit in the revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed.
....
(V.K. JAIN, J.) PRESIDING MEMBER ..
(DR. B.C. GUPTA) MEMBER rk.11