Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3.      Hence the revision petition. 

4.      Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and A.R. of respondent No.1.  Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that engine of the vehicle was seized due to the negligence on the part of the driver as he continued driving the vehicle even when the stone had hit the oil pan of the vehicle and the oil had leaked out.  Thus, the engine was run without any oil and therefore, it got seized.  As per the terms and conditions of the policy, consequential loss is not covered. The surveyor has assessed the loss in respect of accident caused by hitting of the stone to the oil pan in respect of only damage caused to the oil pan of the vehicle. Surveyor has allowed only claim of Rs.8557/- allowing the replacement of the only affected part of oil pan plus some labour cost.  There is no mention in the surveyor's report about damage to the engine as the same was only consequential damage.  Learned counsel further argued that as per Clause 2 of Section 1 of the Private Car package Policy, the Company is not liable to pay any consequential damages. Learned counsel drew attention of the bench to the following provision:-

8.      On the other hand, A.R. of the respondent No.1/complainant stated that the car was fully insured and, therefore, whatever damages were caused to the car are to be indemnified under the policy.  Though there was no FIR lodged, however, surveyor has inspected the vehicle, however, he has not considered the damage to the engine which was seized as the stone hit the oil pan of the engine of the vehicle and the same has been acknowledged by the surveyor. Certain other parts of the engine also got damaged due to which the engine got seized.  Thus, damage of other parts cannot be treated as consequential damage, rather it is direct damage due to impact of the stone on the engine.  The A.R. of the complainant further stated that the order of the State Commission is based on the actual bills submitted by the complainant for the repair of the vehicle, therefore, there cannot be any doubt that the complainant has suffered that much loss.  It was further argued that both the fora below have given concurrent findings and in such cases the scope under a revision petition is very limited.  No jurisdictional issues are involved in the present revision petition, hence it has to be outrightly rejected.

11.    Based on the above examination, I am of the view that the seizure of the engine in the present case may not be seen as a consequential damage, rather it may be considered as damage due to direct impact of the accident caused by hitting of a stone to the engine of the vehicle.  However, it is also seen that the loss could have been minimized, if the driver had stopped the vehicle when he realized that a stone had hit the car.  Thus, the contributory negligence on the part of the driver is there, but this negligence is not in that proportion so as to deny the total claim.  Hence, in the circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to allow the claim at 60% of the actual claim of repairs.