M/S. FUTURE GENERAL INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. 1ST FLOOR, UNIT NO. 110 TO 115, KRISHNA APRA BUSINESS SQUARE, PLOT NO. D4 Vs. G. SRIDHAR GOUD, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR M. PALANISAMY, S.F. 13/2, P. VADUGAPALAYAM, PALLADAM ROAD, (WEST) PALLADAM, TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 20.01.2014 passed by the learned A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (in short, 'the State Commission') in Consumer Complaint No. 70 of 2012 - G. Sridhar Goud Vs. Future General India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. by which, complaint was allowed.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that Complainant/respondent No. 1 purchased Mercedes Benz Car AP09UFTR 7226 from OP No. 2/Respondent No. 2 and got it insured from OP No. 1/petitioner for a sum of Rs. 39,79,517/-. Warranty card and policy documents were not handed over to the complainant. On 22.8.2011, engine of car got switched of and vehicle stopped near Domalguda, Hyderabad; even though, there was no heavy rain on that day. Intimation was given to OP No. 2, but got no response. It was further submitted that complainant complained to OP about defects in the engine plus system, gear box and vehicle was taken to workshop of OP No. 2 on 23.8.2011 for repair. Complainant being fed up with the defects in the car surrendered vehicle to dealer within eight months of purchase of the car. It was further submitted that OP No. 2 assessed repairs to the tune of Rs. 14,75,652.00 whereas, OP No. 1 surveyor recommended loss of Rs. 1,07,012.00 which is gross negligence on the part of OP. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before State Commission for direction to pay the sum assured with compensation of Rs. 15,00,000.00. OP No. 1 resisted complaint and submitted that loss caused to the vehicle is not covered under the policy; even then, OP considered claim of labour charges and some spare parts, as per surveyor report. Denying any deficiency on their part prayed for dismissal of complaint. OP No. 2 resisted complaint and submitted that complaint is bad for non-joiner of manufacturer of the car and that the complainant is not a consumer as defined in the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act and this Commission has no jurisdiction to try the dispute as it seem that the car is put to use by the complainant for enhancing his profits in the business conducted by him. The opposite party No. 2 furnished the complainant with warranty card at the time of sale of the car. The opposite party No. 2 submitted that it received complaints of breakdown of the vehicles due to water logging on the same day on which the complainant had towed down the vehicle to its work shop and as per the preliminary version of the complainant, the vehicle was stalled in water logged condition and he started the vehicle while it was in water logged condition. The complainant had not followed the instructions mentioned in the owner's manual and he cannot make claim against the opposite party No. 2. The opposite party No. 2 submitted that the damage caused to the vehicle is beyond the terms of warranty and the opposite party No. 2 could not proceed with the repairs of the vehicle as the opposite party No. 1-insurance company has not given its approval therefor. The second opposite party has given estimate for Rs. 14,35,652.00 towards labour charges, consumables and replacement of engine of which some of the items may not be covered by the terms of the insurance policy. The opposite party No. 2 submitted that there was no deficiency in service on its part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

(3.) Learned State Commission after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP No. 1 to reimburse amount to the complainant subject to production of receipts relating to repairs of the vehicle and further awarded Rs. 10,000.00 as cost of litigation and dismissed complaint against OP No. 2 against which, this appeal has been filed along with application for condonation of delay.