Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/83/2024

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

BAL KRISHAN DHIR SON OF SH OM PARKASH DHIR - Opp.Party(s)

24 Oct 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

(Additional Bench)

==============

 

Appeal No.	:	A/83/2024
Date of Institution	:	26.02.2024
Date of Decision	:	24.10.2024

 

 

New India Assurance Co. Ltd., SCO 36-37, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh, now through its Authorized Signatory. Regd. Office: The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., #87, M.G. Road Fort, Mumbai – 400 001.

                                                                                         

... Appellant

                                                         Versus

Bal Krishan Dhir son of Sh.Om Parkash Dhir, Partner of M/s Dhir E-Logistic LLP, Resident of H.No.136, Sector 7, Panchkula, one of the Partner.

                                                                                               …Respondents

 

BEFORE:       MRS. PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER

                       MR.PREETINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

Argued by:    Sh. Vinod Chaudhri, Advocate for the Appellant.

                      Sh. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate for the Respondent.

PER PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER

 

1]                The Appellant has filed a misc. application bearing no. MA/190/2024 for condoning the delay of 55 days in filing the Appeal.

 

2]                In Esha Bhattacharjee v. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy, (2013) 12 SCC 649, Civil Appeal No.8183-8184 of 2013 decided 13.09.2013, it has been held that there should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice-oriented, non-pedantic approach while dealing with an application for condonation of delay, for the courts are not supposed to legalise injustice but are obliged to remove injustice. Further in another judgment in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Hindustan Safety Glass Works Ltd.,  Civil Appeal No. 3883 of 2007 decided on 07.04.2017, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held in Para 18 of the judgment, inter alia, that “…. The provision of limitation in the Act cannot be strictly construed to disadvantage a consumer in a case where a supplier of goods or services itself is instrumental in causing a delay in the settlement of the consumer's claim. That being so, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the National Commission was quite right in rejecting the contention of National Insurance in this regard.”

 

3]                For the reasons stated in the application and in view of law settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court, we are of the considered view that the Appellants have been able to satisfy that there had been a sufficient cause for not preferring an appeal within the stipulated period. 

 

4]                In this view of the matter, the misc. application aforesaid stands allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

 

5]                Accordingly, misc. application bearing no. MA/190/2024 stands disposed of.

 

6]                This appeal is directed against the order dated 04.10.2023, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as “the Ld. District Commission”), vide which, it partly allowed the Consumer Complaint bearing no. 761 of 2022 in the following terms;

1. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is hereby partly allowed and OP is directed as under:-

 

1. to pay ₹1,23,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of repudiation of the claim i.e. 1.3.2021 till onwards.

 

2. to pay an amount of ₹30,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;

 

3. to pay ₹10,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

 

5.  

 

7]                For the convenience, the parties are being referred to, in the instant Appeal, as position held in Consumer Complaint before the Ld. District Commission.

8]                Before the Ld. District Commission, it was the case of the Complainant that he is registered owner of truck bearing No. PB-65-AU-5106, which was insured by Opposite Party vide policy Annexure C-1 valid from 18.10.2019 to 17.10.2020.  The complainant engaged Barinder Singh as driver since long for the purpose of driving the subject truck. On the morning of 05.03.2020 near Sapra Nagla when the said truck was being driven by Barinder Singh, suddenly a stray cattle/cow came in front of the truck and as the driver tried to save the said cow by turning the truck towards left hand side and in the said process the truck struck against the tipper which was coming from another side as a result of that the truck damaged. In the accident both the driver Barinder Singh and helper Karanbir Singh suffered injuries and were taken to hospital for treatment. Immediately on receiving the information about the accident, the complainant had given intimation to the Opposite Party, upon which a Surveyor was deputed by the Opposite Party who conducted the spot survey and assessed the damage on the same day i.e. on 05.03.2020. The complainant had submitted all the documents to the said surveyor but,   the OP had wrongly repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 01.03.2021 on the ground that at the relevant time in fact the truck was being driven by Karanbir Singh and not by Barinder Singh as in the accident Karanbir Singh sustained major injuries since the driver side of the subject truck was badly damaged.  It was alleged that even the Surveyor of the Opposite Party had wrongly assessed the loss of the subject truck. Hence the aforesaid Consumer Complaint was filed before the Ld. District Commission, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.

9]                In the reply filed before the Ld. District Commission, the Opposite Party in their written statement took objections of maintainability & concealment of facts. It was admitted that the truck in question was insured at the relevant time with the Opposite Party. It was denied that the truck was being driven by Barinder Singh rather the same was being driven by Karanbir Singh and the complainant has wrongly introduced the driver as Barinder Singh, knowing well that Karanbir Singh was not possessing valid driving license at the time of accident. The claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated on account of violation of terms & condition of subject policy.  Denying all other allegation and pleading no deficiency in service, the Opposite Party prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

10]               On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced on record, Ld. District Commission partly allowed the Consumer Complaint of the complainant as noticed in the opening para of this order.

11]               Aggrieved against the aforesaid order passed by the Ld. District Commission, the instant Appeal has been filed by the Appellant/ Opposite Party.

12]               We have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the evidence and record of the case with utmost care.

13]               The core question that falls for consideration before this Commission is as to whether the Ld. District Commission has rightly passed the impugned order by appreciating the entire material placed before it.          

14]               After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions raised and material on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the instant Appeal is liable to be dismissed for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.    

15]               It is the case of the Appellant that the Ld. District Commission while passing the impugned order has failed to appreciate the documentary evidence available on record, which resulted into perverse finding. Also, the impugned order was passed without taking into consideration the facts of the case and without appreciating the correct legal position, which resulted into gross miscarriage of justice and thus deserves to be set aside. The learned counsel further argued on the similar lines and prayed for acceptance of the present appeal.

16]               Conversely, it has been contended on behalf of the Respondent that the order passed by the Ld. District Commission is quite just & right and does not call for any interference. The detailed finding of facts has already been recorded by the District Commission while rejecting the stand of the Appellant. The learned counsel further argued on the similar lines as stated in the complaint filed before the Ld. District Commission and prayed for dismissal of the present appeal. 

17]               The main thread which runs through the present controversy is whether at the time of accident the driver Barinder Singh was driving the subject truck or it was being driven by Karanbir Singh.

18]               Learned Counsel for the Appellant argued that it is a clear case of swopping of drivers and the documents speak eloquently about this fact. The Ld. District Commission after perusal of documentary evidence on record held that Barinder Singh was driving the vehicle. The Appellant/Opposite Party had placed on record copy of Rapat No. 18 dated 07.03.2020 which clearly showed that the said Rapat was recorded by the police at the instance of Barinder Singh on 07.03.2020 who claimed himself to be driver of the truck and stated in the manner in which the accident had taken place. Further, the motor spot survey report given by Er. Shingara Singh deputed by the Appellant also verified the fact that the name of driver was Barinder Singh who was possessing valid driving license at the time of accident and nothing has come in his report that the subject truck was being driven by Karanbir Singh.  Also, the motor final survey report showed that the surveyor and loss assessor mentioned the name of the driver as Barinder Singh whose driving license was checked online and it was found that he was possessing valid driving license and the said report further mentioned that Karanbir Singh the helper with driver had also sustained injuries in the accident. Thus, it cannot be said that it was Karanbir Singh who was on the steering wheel at the relevant time of the accident, but since he was not in possession of an effective driving license, another driver namely Barinder Singh with an effective driving license was shown to be the driver. As such, the argument raised by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant regarding swooping of drivers is declined.

19]               Learned Counsel for the Appellant further argued that the most vital documents submitted by the Complainant was the Goods Manifest Sheets, where the names of both drivers i.e. on the first page name of Karan Driver and on the second page name of Barinder Singh driver have been mentioned, have erroneously been discarded by the Ld. District Commission. However, we do not find any merit in this limb of argument. The Ld. District Commission in Para 3 (iii) has categorically recorded a finding that in the light of the survey reports, reliance sought to be placed on the documents (Goods Manifest Sheets), it is safe to hold that at the time of accident the subject truck was being driven by Barinder Singh and merely on the ground that Karanbir Singh sustained grievous injuries in the accident will not automatically prove that he was driving the subject truck at the time of accident. To our mind, no case is therefore made for any interference in the well reasoned findings recorded by the Ld. Lower Commission.

20]               No other point was urged, by the Learned Counsel for the parties.

21]               It is demonstrable from a reading of the impugned Order of the Ld. District Commission that it is certainly not an order passed without reasons or without applying the judicious mind. The facts and circumstances of the case have been gone into, weighed and considered, and due analysis of the same has been made. It also does not appear to be an order passed without taking into account the available evidence.

22]               In the wake of the position, as sketched out above, we are dissuaded to interfere with the impugned order rendered by the Ld. District Commission. The appeal being bereft of merit is accordingly dismissed and the order of the Ld. District Commission is upheld.

23]               All the pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed off accordingly.

24]               Certified Copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge. 

25]               The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion and the Ld. District Commission be sent back immediately.

Pronounced

24^th Oct. 2024

                                                                                                                             

Sd/-  [PADMA PANDEY]

PRESIDING MEMBER

Sd/-  [PREETINDER SINGH]

MEMBER

 

“Dutt”