Ludhiana: The district consumer disputes redressal commission has ordered an insurance company to pay a Rs 3.85-lakh claim to a customer for damage caused to her insured Mercedes Benz car due to a stone on a road. The commission ordered General Insurance Company to pay the claim to Neha Vats of Dugri along with 8% interest per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till date of actual payment.
As per the complainant, she purchased the car from an authorised dealer. But, after a year, during periodic servicing of the vehicle, she wrote a complaint to the service manager about a problem in the ignition and noise in the engine. Officers of the authorised dealer told her not to worry as her car had been insured and under warranty period.
The complainant stated that in July 2017, the car met with an accident on an underpass near Lodhi Club, BRS Nagar, as a stone lying in a puddle ricochet off the car’s tyre, hitting the engine’s chamber, causing a leak of in the engine oil and leading to the seizure of the car’s engine.
After the accident, the complainant called the authorised dealer’s workshop and the damaged car was towed to the workshop. The dealer informed the insurance company, which appointed a surveyor and loss assessor. After inspection, he instructed the dealer to start repairing the vehicle.
Though the dealer promised to deliver the car to the complainant shortly after its repair and paying nominal file charges, the car was not delivered inspite of it being repaired.
Instead, the authorised dealer handed over an email conversation, and forwarded the same on the email ID of the complainant, wherein it was stated that the loss was not payable as the same did not fall under the policy condition. The complainant said the insurance company was escaping from its liability as the surveyor, during inspection, assessed the loss without her knowledge.
Even the surveyor reported that the damage accrued to the car did not fall under the terms and conditions of the policy as the engine and gearbox were damaged.
The complainant said no communication and revert was given by Mercedes Benz India despite emails to it and insurance company. Her claim had been rejected arbitrarily, illegally and against the principles of natural justice, which amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, said the commisisoner.
The complainant prayed for issuing directions to the opposite parties to replace/repair the engine and gearbox, and other repair charges of the car along with compensation of Rs 10 lakh and litigation expenses of Rs 51,000.
The complaint against Mercedes Benz India was not admitted and no one turned up on part of the authorised dealer. The commission proceeded ex parte in the case.
In its submission, the insurance company submitted that the claim towards damage of the insured vehicle was intimated by the complainant, which was registered and they appointed Sanhil Chhabra as surveyor. It added that letters dated October 16 and 24 in 2017 were written to demand certain documents, but neither any reply nor any documents were supplied by the insured.
“It was intimated to the insured in the said letters that the engine is not covered under the policy so as per policy terms and conditions engine is not allowed for replacement. The claim was closed as no claim after not receiving any response from the complainant,” the insurance company submitted.
As per the complainant, she purchased the car from an authorised dealer. But, after a year, during periodic servicing of the vehicle, she wrote a complaint to the service manager about a problem in the ignition and noise in the engine. Officers of the authorised dealer told her not to worry as her car had been insured and under warranty period.
The complainant stated that in July 2017, the car met with an accident on an underpass near Lodhi Club, BRS Nagar, as a stone lying in a puddle ricochet off the car’s tyre, hitting the engine’s chamber, causing a leak of in the engine oil and leading to the seizure of the car’s engine.
After the accident, the complainant called the authorised dealer’s workshop and the damaged car was towed to the workshop. The dealer informed the insurance company, which appointed a surveyor and loss assessor. After inspection, he instructed the dealer to start repairing the vehicle.
Though the dealer promised to deliver the car to the complainant shortly after its repair and paying nominal file charges, the car was not delivered inspite of it being repaired.
Instead, the authorised dealer handed over an email conversation, and forwarded the same on the email ID of the complainant, wherein it was stated that the loss was not payable as the same did not fall under the policy condition. The complainant said the insurance company was escaping from its liability as the surveyor, during inspection, assessed the loss without her knowledge.
Even the surveyor reported that the damage accrued to the car did not fall under the terms and conditions of the policy as the engine and gearbox were damaged.
The complainant said no communication and revert was given by Mercedes Benz India despite emails to it and insurance company. Her claim had been rejected arbitrarily, illegally and against the principles of natural justice, which amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, said the commisisoner.
The complainant prayed for issuing directions to the opposite parties to replace/repair the engine and gearbox, and other repair charges of the car along with compensation of Rs 10 lakh and litigation expenses of Rs 51,000.
The complaint against Mercedes Benz India was not admitted and no one turned up on part of the authorised dealer. The commission proceeded ex parte in the case.
In its submission, the insurance company submitted that the claim towards damage of the insured vehicle was intimated by the complainant, which was registered and they appointed Sanhil Chhabra as surveyor. It added that letters dated October 16 and 24 in 2017 were written to demand certain documents, but neither any reply nor any documents were supplied by the insured.
“It was intimated to the insured in the said letters that the engine is not covered under the policy so as per policy terms and conditions engine is not allowed for replacement. The claim was closed as no claim after not receiving any response from the complainant,” the insurance company submitted.