RAM GOPAL SINGH Vs. S N WAHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This complaint was presented before this Commission on 28.1.1993 under Sec.17 (a) (1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with the following averments.

(2.) The complainant is a firm dealing in the business of digging borewells, tubewells with compressor and rigs, etc. , in addition to doing business in consultation. The complainant obtained an insurance policy bearing No.051403/31/71/062/91 in respect of Layland Truck and Compressor No. AHA 8145 for the period from 31.3.1991 to 30.3.1992 from United India Insurance Company Ltd. (opposite party) for a total value of Rs.6,50,000/- covering all the risks of the rig with compressor and other machinery. The rig was damaged on 6.6.1991 due to fire explosion in the compressor and engine when they were on the truck. The complainant immediately informed the opposite party about the accident by his letter dated 7.6.1991. The opposite party appointed one Mr. M. S. Madhava Rao as Surveyor and he enquired into the matter and submitted his report, but the opposite party without settling the claim of the complainant again appointed Mr. Madhusudhan as second Surveyor. But the said Madhusudhan has not come to the complainant to enquire about the matter. The complainant was put in darkness about the progress of his claim. The opposite party again appointed one Shivkumar as a third Surveyor and ultimately repudiated the claim of the complainant by its letter dated 12.8.1992 stating that the damage to the compressor engine fitted on rig mounted truck is due to mechanical breakdown and not due to explosion. The repudiation made by the opposite party is without any basis and is arbitrary. The opposite party is bound to satisfy the complainant with the material in support of the grounds on which it repudiated the claim of the complainant. The complainant sent a letter dated 22.8.1992 protesting to the repudiation made by the opposite party and mentioning all his objections in that letter. The opposite party has not supplied the copies of the reports of the Surveyors. The Surveyors appointed by the opposite party have no basic knowledge in the field. They have not made reliable enquiries from the persons who got good experience in this field. The manufacturer of the rig informed the complainant that there cannot be any mechanical breakdown. The complainant always maintain the vehicles and the machinery in good and perfect condition and there cannot be any scope for any mal-functioning of the rig component. The contention of the opposite party that due to the mechanical breakdown the damage occurred to the machine is not tenable. There is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in not settling the claim of the complainant. Therefore, the complainant prays for a direction to the opposite party to pay to him a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- towards damages and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for the delay in settling the claim.

(3.) One B. B. Chaya Devi, Divisional Manager of the opposite party Insurance Company at Hyderabad filed a counter affidavit denying the allegations made in the complaint and contending that the opposite party sent a letter dated 14.8.1992 to the complainant repudiating the claim of the complainant on the ground that the damage was due to mechanical breakdown which is an exclusion in the policy, that the matter was openly discussed with the complainant but the complainant was not convinced, that the complainant in his letter dated 7.6.1991 informed the opposite party that Cummins engine fitted to the rig mounted truck was damaged in an explosion while the rig was in operation on 6.6.1991, that the opposite party appointed M. S. Madhava Rao as Surveyor and he submitted his report dated 6.1.1992 opining that the alleged damage to the engine was caused on account of starvation of lubrication which will lead to Gudguen pin wrenching off and hitting the Cylinder block while in motion resulting in the breakdown of cylinder block causing heavy damage to the Crankshaft, Pistons, Connecting Rods, Camshaft and Cylinder head, that when the matter was referred to the manufacturer they called this damage as freak accident which seldom takes place in the engines which are provided by air-vents whenever air pressure is built inside the engine, that the said Surveyor submitted another report dated 13.5.1992 stating that the damage was not due to explosion and it was only due to mechanical breakdown and leaving the settlement of the claim of the complainant to the opposite party, that the opposite party appointed Mr. Madhusudhan as second Surveyor and he also endorsed the view that the damage was due to mechanical breakdown and not due to explosion and the Crankshaft in motion and the connecting rod must have hit the wall of the cylinder block resulting in the breakdown of wall of the cylinder block and the breakage of lower half of the piston, that the opposite party again appointed another senior Surveyor Mr. N. Shivkumar to enquire into the matter and he submitted a report dated 11.7.1992 stating that the damages to the compressor were caused due to mechanical breakdown and not due to explosion for the reasons mentioned in his report, that there is sufficient material to show that the damage caused to the compressor and rig were due to mechanical breakdown, that the complainant has not produced any material to show that the alleged damage was due to explosion and that, therefore, the claim of the complainant for payment of damages is not sustainable. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that the complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint since the policy was issued in the name of one V. Ravinder Reddy and the complaint was filed by a firm M/s. Manjira Rock Drillers and that the complaint is liable to be dismissed.