Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/267/2013

Kuldip Singh S/o Ramji Lal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bajaj allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

None

18 Mar 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                             Complaint No. 267 of 2013

                                                                                             Date of institution: 04.04.2013.

                                                                                             Date of decision:18.03.2016.

Kuldeep Singh aged about 40 years son of Sh. Ramji Lal resident of Village Khajuri, Sub Tehsil Radaur, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                                                                                              …Complainant.

                                    Versus

 

1. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, SCO 14, 4^th Floor Urban Estate, Sector-5, Panchkula, through its Managing Director.
2. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, Yamuna Nagar, through its Branch Manager.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         …Respondents.

 

Before:             SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG…………….. PRESIDENT.

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA………………………….MEMBER.

 

Present:  Sh. Suresh Pal Banchal, Advocate, counsel for complainant.  

               Sh. Rajiv Kumar Gupta, Advocate, counsel for respondents.             

             

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant Kuldip Singh has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986, praying therein that respondents ( hereinafter referred as OPs) be directed to pay an amount of Rs. 50000/- on account of damages to the tractor in question and further to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses.

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that he is the registered owner of one tractor make TAFE bearing registration No. HR-02Y-4335 which was comprehensively insured with the OPs vide insurance policy bearing No. OG-13-1207-1811-00000184 and cover note bearing No. MC1003130750 valid from 11.8.2012 to 10.8.2013 for a sum insured of Rs. 4,50,000/-. On 8.9.2012, the tractor of the complainant met with a road side accident and due to this accident the said tractor of the complainant badly damaged. In this regard an FIR bearing No. 112 dated 19.09.2012 under section 279/337 IPC was registered in the Police Station Radaur. The complainant got repaired his tractor from M/s Hari Motors Karnal who was authorized dealer of the tractor in question and spent Rs. 50,000/- on its repair etc. Thereafter, the said accident was reported to the OPs Insurance Company and complainant filed regular claim and completed all the legal formalities but despite that OPs are putting off the matter on one pretext or the other. Hence, this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable, this Forum has got no territorial jurisdiction and on merit it has been mentioned that on receipt of the information, the OPs company immediately deputed an in house Surveyor Sh. Roop Chand Chaudhary to survey and assess the loss, if any, to the damaged vehicle, who submitted his report dated 28.9.2012 (Annexure R-1), assessed the net loss on repair basis to the tune of Rs. 12934/- after applying the relevant depreciation clause and after deducting the amount on account of salvage and compulsory excess subject to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. After that claim papers were processed and it was found that driver of the said tractor/ trolley Sh. Ravinder Kumar was not holding a valid and effective driving license to drive the goods carriage/transport vehicles at the time of accident. Besides this, as per the claim form, two person were travelling on the tractor in question whereas the sitting capacity of the tractor is one person only and both the abovesaid facts amounts to violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Therefore, the OPs Insurance Company vide its registered letter dated 26.10.2012 (Annexure R-2) gave a seven (7) days show cause notice to the complainant as to why his claim should not be repudiated. Further the complainant was also asked to submit the original bills of the repair and the parts purchased by him. A reminder to this effect was also given by the OPs Insurance Company vide its letter dated 06.11.2012 (Annexure R-3) and lastly OPs Insurance Company repudiated the claim of the complainant vide its letter dated 19.11.2012 (Annexure R-4). Lastly prayed that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.                     As the complainant failed to lead any evidence, hence his evidence was closed by court order on 04.11.2015. However, at the time of filing of complaint, complainant filed his affidavit and documents such as Photo copy of FIR Annexure C-1 Photo copy of Bill No. 447 dated 30.10.2012 as Annexure C-2, Photo copy of Insurance cover note as Annexure C-3, Photo copy of driving license as Annexure C-4 and Photo copy of R.C. as Annexure C-5 with the complaint in support of his complaint.

5.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Sachin Ohri, Assistant Manager, Bajaj Allianz Gen Ins as Annexure RW/A, affidavit of Himesh Sharma  working with Bajaj Allianz as Annexure RW/B and affidavit of Sachin Gulati as Annexure RW/C and documents such as Photo copy of preliminary survey report as Annexure R-1, Photo copy of letter dated 26.10.2012 as Annexure R-2, Photo copy of letter dated 06.11.2012 as Annexure R-3, Photo copy of registered AD letter dated 19.11.2012 as Annexure R-4, Photo copy of Insurance policy as annexure R-5, Photo copy of verification of DL as annexure R-6, Photo copy of FIR as Annexure R-7, Photo copy of Driving License as Annexure R-8, Photo copy of RC as Annexure R-9 and Photo copy of claim form as Annexure R-10 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.

6.                     We have heard the counsels of both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file carefully and minutely. We are of the considered view that there is a deficiency in service on the part of OPs Insurance Company as the OPs Insurance company has totally failed to file any documentary evidence that the driver of the tractor in question Sh. Ravinder Kumar was not holding any valid and effective driving license at the time of accident. We have perused the repudiation letter dated 19.11.2012 (Annexure R-4) and letter dated 26.10.2012 (Annexure R-2) and letter dated 06.11.2012 (Annexure R-3 wherein it has been mentioned that “on verification of the driving license of the driver Ravinder Kumar vide DL No. N/2010/16055 it was established that DL was not valid for tractor trolley( goods Carrying) at the time of accident and further it has been mentioned that as per Motor Vehicle Act no person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving license issued to him authorizing him to drive the vehicle and no person shall so drive a transport vehicle hired for his own use or rented under any scheme  made under sub section (2) of Section 75 unless his driving license specifically entitles him so to do. Besides this, it has been mentioned that two other persons were travelling in tractor in question whereas the sitting capacity of the tractor is only for one person and further complainant was asked to submit the original bill of repair and parts”.

 7                     After going through the above noted reasons taken by the OPs for rejection of claim, we are of the considered view that claim of the complainant has been wrongly repudiated by the Ops Insurance Company, firstly the OPs Insurance Company has failed to file any documentary evidence that at the time of alleged accident, the tractor in question was carrying or transporting any goods in the trolley. Moreover, OPs Insurance Company has not filed any report from the Licensing Authority or of any investigator that the driving license bearing No. N/2010/16055 of Ravinder Kumar was not valid for driving the tractor in question. We have perused the copy of driving license which is on the file and this license is meant for car, jeep, scooter, motorcycle and tractor and was valid up to 24.03.2030 w.e.f. 25.3.2010. So, Ravinder Kumar was having a valid and effective driving license to drive the tractor in question.

8                      The second plea of the Insurance Company is that original bills have not submitted by the complainant is also not tenable as the surveyor who submitted his report (Annexure R-1) assessed the loss of Rs. 12,934/- has not mentioned anywhere that the complainant has not submitted the original bills with him. Even, no notice or letter has been placed on file issued by the said Surveyor to the complainant. When the loss of an amount of Rs.12,934/- has been assessed by the surveyor vide his report then it cannot be presumed that original bill was not submitted by the complainant. However, photo copy of the bill is attached on the file and the same might have been supplied to the counsel for the OPs at the time of appearance in this complaint. We have perused the contents of the FIR bearing No.112 dated 19.9.2012 which is on the file wherein it has nowhere mentioned that at the time of accident any other person was also travelling on the tractor alongwith its driver Raviner Kumar. So, the plea of the OPs that complainant was using his tractor in violation of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy is also not tenable.

9.                     Learned counsel for the complainant argued that complainant has spent Rs. 50,000/- on account of repair of the tractors but this argument is not tenable as the complainant has not filed any documentary evidence to prove his version. On the other hand, version of the OPs is duly proved from the surveyor report (Annexure R-1) that the damages to the tractor in question was to the extent of Rs. 12934/- as assessed by the surveyor vide his report dated 27.9.2012 (Annexure R-1) as the complainant has not filed any contrary evidence to the report of the surveyor and in the absence of that we are unable to hold that complainant had spent Rs.50,000/- on account of damages because it is well settled law that credence should be given to the report of the surveyor.

10.                   In these circumstances noted above, we are of the considered view that the claim of the complainant has been wrongly repudiated on the flimsy ground by the OPs Insurance Company which constitute a deficiency in service on the part of Ops.

11.                   Resultantly, we partly allow the complaint of complainant and direct the OPs Insurance Company to pay the assessed amount of Rs. 12934/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till its actual realization and further OPs Insurance Company is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs. 2000/- as litigation expenses. Order be complied within 30 days from the date of preparation of copy of this order failing which complainant shall be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum as per law. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court.

Dated: 18.03.2016.                 

                                                                                    (ASHOK KUMAR GARG )

                                                                                    PRESIDENT,

                                                                                     

 

                                                                                    (S.C.SHARMA )

                                                                                     MEMBER.