Dhananjay Jog
In an earlier article (A Case of Airbag Failure and Justice – April 6, 2025), we saw that if a machine or vehicle can be restored to working condition by replacing a specific part or system, the consumer cannot insist on replacing the entire machine or vehicle. In that case, the buyer’s demand for a new car was not accepted; only the defective airbag system was ordered to be replaced.
This is where Nita, the protagonist of today’s case, went wrong. She prematurely replaced the entire chassis of her truck on the advice of a garage owner. Here’s how the story unfolded.
Nita owned a tipper truck—typically used in the mining and construction industries to transport ore or other materials, which can be unloaded using a tipping mechanism. One day, the truck met with an accident while in operation. The vehicle was insured with a major insurance company, Western Insurers (all names changed). Appropriate steps, including informing the police and the insurer, were duly taken. The insurer appointed a surveyor to assess the damage.
Nita then had the truck towed to Sapna Garage, which provided a repair estimate. Given that the initial survey was conducted at the accident site—a procedure known as a ‘spot survey’, which is limited in scope due to the need to clear the road and the inability to examine the vehicle thoroughly—the insurer appointed a second, senior surveyor. This follow-up survey at the garage would allow for a detailed inspection and assessment of the repair estimate.
Nita’s mistake was proceeding with the repairs based on the garage’s advice without waiting for the insurer’s approval. The final bill amounted to Rs.74,000, which included Rs.59,000 for a new chassis and Rs.1,500 for towing.
However, two months later, the insurer approved only Rs. 9,000 (all figures rounded for ease of understanding). Nita refused to accept this amount, especially since accepting it required her to waive any further claims. Instead, she approached the District Consumer Commission, seeking reimbursement of the full Rs.74,000 plus interest, and compensation and costs totalling Rs.50,000.
The insurer appeared before the Commission and argued that the chassis replacement was unnecessary. Their senior surveyor—a qualified mechanical engineer—stated that the chassis could have been repaired using a method called ‘cold pressing’, which any reasonably equipped garage can perform. He also noted in his report that he had personally recommended this method during his inspection at Sapna Garage, and the garage owner had agreed.
In contrast, Nita submitted a report from a certain Hemant, who opined that the chassis required ‘hot forming’ to be repaired—a process only available in specialised industries and not in Goa, making replacement the more feasible option. Hemant supported his report with an affidavit.
However, the insurer filed a counter-affidavit from its senior surveyor, stating that Sapna Garage’s owner, Ganpat, had agreed to perform cold pressing for just Rs.3,500. Based on this, the insurer calculated the approved claim at Rs.9,000. It was further argued that decisions regarding repair or replacement of parts lie with the insurer. To rebut this, Nita presented a certificate from Ganpat stating that the chassis needed replacement. But upon cross-examination, it was revealed that Ganpat had only studied up to Standard 8, had no formal technical qualifications, and stood to gain more financially by recommending a replacement. Also, the certificate carried a suspicious date—prior to the accident—and Ganpat admitted he could not write in English but had signed the certificate upon being told it was required by the insurer.
With these conflicting claims, the central question before us was clear: Was it necessary to replace the truck’s chassis?
The insurer’s surveyor presented documents proving his mechanical engineering qualifications, which he reaffirmed during cross-examination. His answers to technical questions posed by a qualified member of the Commission confirmed his expertise. He maintained that cold pressing would not weaken the chassis.
Meanwhile, Hemant’s affidavit emphasised the weakness of hot forming but made no mention of cold pressing. This omission was critical.
Given all these considerations, we found Ganpat’s testimony and certificate unreliable, both due to his vested interest and lack of qualifications. Hemant’s affidavit also lacked weight, as it failed to consider the viable alternative of cold pressing.
We concluded that the chassis replacement was unnecessary, and Nita was not entitled to claim that cost. The insurer had offered Rs 9,000, which she had declined. Accordingly, we directed the insurer to pay Nita Rs 9,000 only.
(If you have any question on this matter, want to share your comments on this or an earlier article, or otherwise are a consumer with a question, please feel free to e-mail me at danjog@yahoo.com.)
