A bench comprising Justice MSK Jaiswal and member Meena Ramanathan pronounced this get soon after hearing two appeals filed by the insurance organization and Mercedes Benz AG corporation alongside with its seller, who challenged an order from a district courtroom which ordered them to compensate the customer by sharing the burden proportionately. The complainant, Narendra Surana of Secunderabad, had obtained the Benz car in 2009 and been battling a lawful struggle to regain the massive maintenance charges he incurred on account of destruction suffered by the engine.
Surana procured Mercedes Benz E 350 L for Rs 47 lakh from Adiswar Auto Diagnostics, authorised Benz supplier in Hyderabad, and got the substantial-close car registered on December 3, 2009. He took a vehicle insurance policies on Oct 14, 2010, from ICICI Lombard. On July 28, 2011, at 12.15 am, the vehicle strike a stone on Street No. 2, Banjara Hills. Since it was raining seriously, the gathered rainwater entered the automobile motor.
The client knowledgeable the dealer about the predicament and termed for a mechanic assistance. The mechanic arrived, but because of to his inexperience, he attempted to start off the auto. The motor vehicle was shifted to the workshop. Both the Merc company and its dealer presented some discount and the purchaser used Rs 17 lakh for mend. He was trying to find a refund of this amount from the coverage organization.
At first, Surana filed his criticism right before the district consumer forum. The district forum requested the insurance policies business to shell out Rs 12 lakh and the motor vehicle enterprise and the vendor have been jointly questioned to pay out Rs 5 lakh. Aggrieved by this get, the vehicle organization and the dealer filed one particular attractiveness and the insurance policies organization favored a different enchantment .
The consumer commission gave a ruling that the car corporation and the seller were being not at fault since the warranty states that if the car or truck was operate by means of unpliable parts and waterlogged roads, the warranty does not apply. Appropriately, equally of them ended up exonerated.
The commission, however, said the exemption cannot be specified to the insurance plan firm because the coverage addresses organic calamities and consequently the insurance company simply cannot escape the responsibility.