You are here: Home » PF » News » Insurance
Business Standard

Don't touch accident vehicle until inspection

A consumer must not act in haste and must wait for the vehicle to be first inspected by the surveyor

Jehangir B Gai 

  • ALSO READ

    Uttar Pradesh: State employees to benefit from political windfall PM's crop insurance scheme makes slow start in first season Accident cover to guard against disability Fraud claims leave life insurers in a fix Mumbai mandals secure bumper insurance for Ganesh Chaturthi

It might sometimes happen that damage due to an appears to be minor and not worth lodging an claim for. However, the real extent of damage may be realised only after the vehicle is opened for inspection. In such a case, the company can refuse to settle a claim as the surveyor did not get the opportunity to inspect the condition of the vehicle when the occurred. Here is a case of how a consumer had to suffer a loss due to his own hasty actions.
 
Ghanshyam Maurya had purchased an Escorts tractor from Tractor Dealer Farm Equipment and Machinery. It was covered under a one-year warranty from September 10, 1992, its purchase date. The tractor met with an It was then taken to the authorised repair workshop and an estimate for repairs was sought. The company was also intimated.


 
Maurya filed before the District Forum that the tractor suffered from various manufacturing defects. He alleged that he had taken the tractor to the authorised workshop several times, but these defects could not be removed. So he sought a replacement and compensation for harassment.
 
The complaint was contested by the dealer as well as the manufacturer. It was pointed out that the warranty was for one year during which period the company would either repair it or replace any defective components.
 
The tractor had met with an for which it was taken to the workshop which gave a repair estimate of Rs 25,000. The surveyor recommended a repudiation of the claim as Maurya had instructed the tractor to be opened up for getting the repair estimate prior to its inspection by the surveyor. Since the company refused to settle the claim, it was alleged that he filed a false complaint alleging manufacturing defect.
 
The Forum allowed the complaint and ordered a replacement of the tractor, or alternatively, refund of its price of Rs 1, 71,980, along with interest, compensation and costs. This order was challenged before the State Commission, but the appeal was dismissed.
 
The dealer then filed a revision petition. The observed that Maurya had not produced any evidence or produced any expert opinion to establish a manufacturing defect in the tractor. He was also unable to produce the job cards or other documentary proof to show that the tractor was repeatedly taken to the workshop for repairs. On the contrary, the documents showed that the tractor was taken periodically for free servicing during the warranty period and not for any defect.
 
The concluded that Maurya had filed a complaint and made false allegations about a manufacturing defect when there was none, merely because the company had rejected his claim, and that too for his own fault of getting the tractor opened prior to inspection by the surveyor.
 
Accordingly, by its order of November 2, 2016, delivered by V K Jain, the set aside the orders of the lower fora and dismissed Maurya's complaint.
 
A consumer must not act in haste. He must wait for the vehicle to be first inspected by the surveyor.
 

RECOMMENDED FOR YOU

Don't touch accident vehicle until inspection

A consumer must not act in haste and must wait for the vehicle to be first inspected by the surveyor

A consumer must not act in haste and must wait for the vehicle to be first inspected by the surveyor It might sometimes happen that damage due to an appears to be minor and not worth lodging an claim for. However, the real extent of damage may be realised only after the vehicle is opened for inspection. In such a case, the company can refuse to settle a claim as the surveyor did not get the opportunity to inspect the condition of the vehicle when the occurred. Here is a case of how a consumer had to suffer a loss due to his own hasty actions.
 
Ghanshyam Maurya had purchased an Escorts tractor from Tractor Dealer Farm Equipment and Machinery. It was covered under a one-year warranty from September 10, 1992, its purchase date. The tractor met with an It was then taken to the authorised repair workshop and an estimate for repairs was sought. The company was also intimated.
 
Maurya filed before the District Forum that the tractor suffered from various manufacturing defects. He alleged that he had taken the tractor to the authorised workshop several times, but these defects could not be removed. So he sought a replacement and compensation for harassment.
 
The complaint was contested by the dealer as well as the manufacturer. It was pointed out that the warranty was for one year during which period the company would either repair it or replace any defective components.
 
The tractor had met with an for which it was taken to the workshop which gave a repair estimate of Rs 25,000. The surveyor recommended a repudiation of the claim as Maurya had instructed the tractor to be opened up for getting the repair estimate prior to its inspection by the surveyor. Since the company refused to settle the claim, it was alleged that he filed a false complaint alleging manufacturing defect.
 
The Forum allowed the complaint and ordered a replacement of the tractor, or alternatively, refund of its price of Rs 1, 71,980, along with interest, compensation and costs. This order was challenged before the State Commission, but the appeal was dismissed.
 
The dealer then filed a revision petition. The observed that Maurya had not produced any evidence or produced any expert opinion to establish a manufacturing defect in the tractor. He was also unable to produce the job cards or other documentary proof to show that the tractor was repeatedly taken to the workshop for repairs. On the contrary, the documents showed that the tractor was taken periodically for free servicing during the warranty period and not for any defect.
 
The concluded that Maurya had filed a complaint and made false allegations about a manufacturing defect when there was none, merely because the company had rejected his claim, and that too for his own fault of getting the tractor opened prior to inspection by the surveyor.
 
Accordingly, by its order of November 2, 2016, delivered by V K Jain, the set aside the orders of the lower fora and dismissed Maurya's complaint.
 
A consumer must not act in haste. He must wait for the vehicle to be first inspected by the surveyor.
 
image
Business Standard
177 22

Don't touch accident vehicle until inspection

A consumer must not act in haste and must wait for the vehicle to be first inspected by the surveyor

It might sometimes happen that damage due to an appears to be minor and not worth lodging an claim for. However, the real extent of damage may be realised only after the vehicle is opened for inspection. In such a case, the company can refuse to settle a claim as the surveyor did not get the opportunity to inspect the condition of the vehicle when the occurred. Here is a case of how a consumer had to suffer a loss due to his own hasty actions.
 
Ghanshyam Maurya had purchased an Escorts tractor from Tractor Dealer Farm Equipment and Machinery. It was covered under a one-year warranty from September 10, 1992, its purchase date. The tractor met with an It was then taken to the authorised repair workshop and an estimate for repairs was sought. The company was also intimated.
 
Maurya filed before the District Forum that the tractor suffered from various manufacturing defects. He alleged that he had taken the tractor to the authorised workshop several times, but these defects could not be removed. So he sought a replacement and compensation for harassment.
 
The complaint was contested by the dealer as well as the manufacturer. It was pointed out that the warranty was for one year during which period the company would either repair it or replace any defective components.
 
The tractor had met with an for which it was taken to the workshop which gave a repair estimate of Rs 25,000. The surveyor recommended a repudiation of the claim as Maurya had instructed the tractor to be opened up for getting the repair estimate prior to its inspection by the surveyor. Since the company refused to settle the claim, it was alleged that he filed a false complaint alleging manufacturing defect.
 
The Forum allowed the complaint and ordered a replacement of the tractor, or alternatively, refund of its price of Rs 1, 71,980, along with interest, compensation and costs. This order was challenged before the State Commission, but the appeal was dismissed.
 
The dealer then filed a revision petition. The observed that Maurya had not produced any evidence or produced any expert opinion to establish a manufacturing defect in the tractor. He was also unable to produce the job cards or other documentary proof to show that the tractor was repeatedly taken to the workshop for repairs. On the contrary, the documents showed that the tractor was taken periodically for free servicing during the warranty period and not for any defect.
 
The concluded that Maurya had filed a complaint and made false allegations about a manufacturing defect when there was none, merely because the company had rejected his claim, and that too for his own fault of getting the tractor opened prior to inspection by the surveyor.
 
Accordingly, by its order of November 2, 2016, delivered by V K Jain, the set aside the orders of the lower fora and dismissed Maurya's complaint.
 
A consumer must not act in haste. He must wait for the vehicle to be first inspected by the surveyor.
 

image
Business Standard
177 22