No insurance for car 'carelessly driven' in waterlogged area

A jewellery firm was denied insurance claim for its damaged car by a consumer forum which said the vehicle was carelessly driven in heavily waterlogged area without considering the consequences.
West Delhi Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, presided by Bimla Makin, rejected the plea of Gujranwala Jewellers seeking Rs 5,12,357 from Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd, with which the car was insured, for the damaged vehicle.
"As the complainant's car was not parked under Wazirpur underbridge and was driven into the waterlogged underbridge carelessly and without (any) regard to the consequences that may follow in driving through heavily waterlogged underbridge...

"The Opposition Party (company) cannot be held liable for the loss or damage caused to vehicle due to own act of complainant in the present case. Hence, the company rightly rejected the claim of the complainant," the forum said.
The forum also said that the noise emanating from the engine was indicative of the additional wear and tear caused to the engine due to own act of complainant.
In the order, it also noted that the complainant had informed the insurance firm about the damage to the car after a delay of more than a week.

The complainant had approached the forum submitting that in November 2008, it had purchased the car which was insured with the insurance company.

Due to heavy rains in Delhi on July 27, 2009, the car which was parked at Wazirpur underbridge submerged under accumulated rain water and resulted in damage to the engine of vehicle, generating abnormal noise, the complaint said.
Gujranwala Jewellers communicated about the damage to the insurance company which repudiated the claim.
The complainant then approached the forum seeking direction to the company to pay Rs 2,57,357 as claim and a compensation of Rs two lakh and cost of litigation of Rs 55,000.
The insurance firm, however, told the forum that the car was not parked under Wazirpur underbridge and was driven into the waterlogged area carelessly without considering consequences. It added that the complainant had committed breach of policy.

It also said that it was not intimated immediately as per policy condition and the complainant did not provide any estimate of repair.