Haryana

Jind

CC/128/2014

Dhani Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chola Mandalam MS GIC - Opp.Party(s)

Sh B.S. Kaushal

23 Aug 2016

ORDER

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JIND.
                            Complaint No. 128 of 2014
                            Date of institution:-13.10.2014
                            Date of decision:-2.9.2016
Dhani Ram s/o Hazari Lal r/o village Ghimana, Tehsil and District Jind. 
                                       ...Complainant.
Versus
Chola Mandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. registered office Dare House, 2nd floor, No.2, NSC Bose road, Chennai 600001 through its Branch Manager, Karnal (insurer of Sawraj Tractor 724 bearing registration No.HR31J-0302 vide cover note No.9284665 certificate No.3380/00612246/000/00 dated 19.8.2013 effective up to 18.8.2014.
Raj Kumar Jindal care of Sawraj Tractor Company Hansi road, Jind. 
                                          …Opposite parties.
Complaint under section 12 of
                Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Before: Sh. Dina Nath Arora, President.    
            Smt. Bimla Sheokand, Member.
            Sh. Mahinder Kumar Khurana, Member.
            
Present:-    Sh. B.S. Kaushal Adv. for complainant. 
        Sh. P.K. Batra Adv.for opposite parties. 
            
Order:-
        In nutshell, the facts of the complaint are that the complainant  is registered owner of Sawraj Tractor No. HR-31-J-0302 which was purchased from its Agency at Hansi road, Jind from opposite party No.2. The above said tractor was got insured with the 
            Dhani Ram Vs. Chola Mandalam GIC etc.
                    …2…
opposite party No.1 at Jind and he issued cover note No.9284665 certificate No.3380/00612246/000/00 dated 19.8.2013 effective up to 18.8.2014. It is stated that on 29.9.2013 at 4.15 P.M. the above said tractor was enroute from village Ghimana to Jind and near Mittal factory one Hasin s/o Raghbir  took lift in said tractor for coming to Jind and when said tractor which was being driven by Phool Kumar reached near Shaym Nagar Colony, Jind where construction work of road was in progress and there were ditches in the side of the road and in the mean time one motor cycle came all of sudden and thereafter the said tractor turn turtile in ditches and in this way the said tractor suffered huge damages. The complainant informed the opposite party  immediately regarding the damage of tractor and submitted all the necessary documents. The official of opposite party asked the complainant to get repair of his vehicle and submit the bills for repairing. As per instruction of opposite party the complainant got repaired his vehicle and spent more than Rs.1,25,000/-.  The complainant visited the office of opposite parties and requested to give the claim amount but the opposite party did not pay any heed on the request of the complainant.  Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is alleged. It is prayed that the complaint be accepted and opposite parties be directed to pay the claim amount of Rs.1,25,000/- as well as to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental pain and agony to the complainant. 
2.    Pursuant to notice, the opposite party No.1 has appeared and filed the written reply contending in the preliminary objections i.e. 
            Dhani Ram Vs. Chola Mandalam GIC etc.
                    …3…
complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint and  complaint is not maintainable in the present forum. On merits, it is contended that opposite party appointed an independent surveyor and loss assessor Mr. Parvinder Kumar who submitted his report dated 16.10.2013 by assessing the net loss to the tune of Rs.17,780/- but the same is not found payable as the complainant himself has violated the terms and conditions of the policy. The complainant had plied the tractor on hire and for carrying passenger whereas sitting capacity of tractor even as per RC is only of one i.e. driver. At the time of accident the tractor was being plied on hire for carrying passengers and for commercial purposes. As per condition of the policy and rules of Motor Vehicle Act and without getting the said Tractor registered before the Motor Vehicle Authority plied the same on road in violation of the Act, hence the answering opposite party is not liable to compensate the complainant. The answering opposite party has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering opposite party. Dismissal of complaint with cost  is prayed for.  
3.    In evidence, the complainant has  produced  the copy of estimate Ex. C-1, copy of RC Ex. C-2, copy of driving licence Ex. C-3, copy of policy schedule Ex. C-4, copy of rapat rojnamcha Ex. C-5, copy of cash memo Ex. C-6 and affidavit of complainant Ex. C-7 and closed the evidence.  On the other hand, opposite party No.1 has produced the affidavit of Sh. Jitendra Dhabhai, Legal Officer Ex. OP-1, copies of final survey report Ex. OP-2 to Ex. OP-4, copy of insurance claim 
            Dhani Ram Vs. Chola Mandalam GIC etc.
                    …4…
form Ex. OP-5 and Ex. OP-6 and copy of statement Ex. OP-7 and closed the evidence. 
4.    We have heard Ld. counsels of both the parties and also perused the record placed on file. It is not disputed that the vehicle in question met with an accident on 29.9.2013 and he has lodged the DDR No.9 dated 29.9.2013  it is  not disputed that vehicle in question damaged in accident, but it is disputed that  complainant claiming that he has repaired the vehicle and spent Rs.1,25,000/-  on the other hand the surveyor of the opposite party has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.17,780/- after inspecting the damaged tractor. We have also gone through the file the complainant has only submitted the bill of Rs.61,854/- from the private mechanic. There is no affidavit on the file of the mechanic who has repaired the vehicle and submit the bill of Rs.61,854/-. No wattage can be given the bill Ex. C-1 submitted by the complaint of the private mechanic. On the other hand surveyor has assessed the loss after due verification and give the detail of the parts which was repaired or replaced. The Hon’ble National Commission has given the various judgments that the surveyor is the best person to assess the loss of vehicle in question. Another ground has been taken by the opposite parties that when the vehicle in question met with an accident complainant was plying the said tractor on hire i.e. for  carrying the passenger, where as sitting capacity of only one person i.e. Driver as per RC but at the time of  accident one person namely Hasin was sitting on the tractor, which is clear violation in the terms and conditions of the policy. The plea of the opposite parties is not 
            Dhani Ram Vs. Chola Mandalam GIC etc.
                    …5…
tenable that the tractor in question met with an accident as per DDR by driven  Phool Kumar when he reached near Shyam Colony Jind. This is not the cause of accident that one person was sitting on the tractor. There were a road work on progress and there were ditches in the side of the road and thereafter above said tractor turn turtile in ditches. The above said fact is proved from the DDR Ex. C-5 even then surveyor has not denied the above said facts in his report.  
5.    In view of the above discussion, deficiency in service is established on the part of the opposite parties. Resultantly, the complaint is partly allowed with cost and opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.17,780/- (Rs. seventeen thousand seven hundred and eighty only) as assessed by the surveyor to the complainant within 30 days, failing which the opposite parties are directed to pay  the simple interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 13.10.2014 till its realization. We assess Rs.2200/-(Rs. twenty two hundred only) as litigation expenses to the complainant. Copies of order be supplied to the parties under the rule. File be consigned to the record-room after due compliance.
Announced on: 2.9.2016
                                              President,
       Member       Member                 District Consumer Disputes                                          Redressal Forum, Jind

 

 

        Dhani Ram Vs. Chola Mandalam GIC etc.
                    
                    
Present:-    Sh. B.S. Kaushal Adv. for complainant. 
        Sh. P.K. Batra Adv.for opposite parties. 
                

        Order announced. Vide our separate order of the even date, the complaint is partly allowed. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance. 
                                                                                               President,
            Member            Member                     DCDRF,Jind
                                        2.9.2016