Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/310/2013

Anil Kumar S/o Harphool Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Future Generali India Insurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

R.K.Kamboj

03 Feb 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                       Complaint No. 310 of 2013.

                                                                                       Date of institution: 01.05.2013.

                                                                                       Date of decision: 03.02.2017

Anil Kumar aged about 35 years son of Sh. Harphool Singh resident of village Salempur Khadar, Post Office Ledi, Tehsil Jagadhri, Distt. Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                                                                                        …Complainant.

1. Future Generally India Insurance Company Limited, branch near office of Haryana Polution Control Board, Sector-17, HUDA, Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar through its Branch Manager.
2. Future Generally India Insurance Company Limited Branch Office at SCO 78-79, 2^nd Floor, Sector-17 C, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager.                                                                                                                  

                                                                                                                                       …Respondents.   

 

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

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

 

Present:  Sh. Rajinder Kamboj Advocate, counsel for complainant.  

                Sh. Rajiv Gupta, Advocate, counsel for respondents.

             

ORDER

 

1.                    Complainant Anil Kumar has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986 praying therein that respondents (hereinafter respondents will be referred as OPs) be directed to make the claim amount alongwith interest on account of repair of tractor bearing No. HR-02-N-5586, which was damaged in an accident and also to pay compensation on account of suffering, mental agony as well as physical harassment and also to pay litigation expenses.

2.                     Brief facts of the complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that complainant is owner of tractor bearing registration No. HR-02N-5586 and is using the same for his agriculture purposes and the same was got insured vide policy bearing No. M0137313 valid w.e.f. 21.01.2013 to 20.01.2014. Unfortunately, the gear box of the tractor in question was broken on 01.02.2013 while using the same in his field. The complainant immediately intimated to the OPs and lodged his claim vide claim No. M0011356. After receiving the aforesaid claim of complainant, the OPs appointed surveyor namely Sh. Amit Sharma to assess the loss due to breakage of gear box of the tractor in question. The surveyor inspected the said damaged tractor of complainant and assured that his claim is genuine and complainant will certainly get claim. As per assurance made by the surveyor the complainant got repaired his tractor from Saini Tractor Workshop, Khizrabad, District Yamuna Nagar and spent a sum of Rs. 45,000/- vide bill No. 194 dated 12.03.2013. The complainant requested many times to OPs to pay the repairer amount but they always postponed the matter with one pretext or the other and lastly repudiate the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 14.03.2013 on the ground that there is no damage to the tractor due to accidental external means and gear box is not covered under the scope of policy. As such, there is a great deficiency in service on the part of OPs and the complainant has been forced to file this complaint. Lastly, the complainant has prayed to issue direction to the OP to pay the claim amount with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of accident till its actual realization and also to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses.

3.                     Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint not maintainable, this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the present complaint, no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of OPs; in this case an intimation regarding loss to the tractor bearing registration No. HR-02N-5586 dated 02.02.2013 was received belatedly on 05.03.2013 by the Ops Insurance Company and the OPs Insurance
Company immediately deputed independent Surveyor & Loss Assessor Sh. Amit Sharma who submitted his report on 12.03.2013 (Annexure R-1) by assessing loss of the tractor in question on repair basis subject to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy after applying the depreciation clause to the tune of Rs. 16,700/-. The surveyor has further specifically pointed out that damages to the gear box were caused while the tractor trolley in question was carrying sugarcane and the cause of damages was not accidental but due to internal means and there was no external accidental damages to the tractor. It has been further mentioned that as per section 1(2) of the Insurance Policy, the insurance company is not liable to make the payment for the consequential losses, depreciation, wear and tear, mechanical or electrical breakdown, failure or breakages nor the damages caused by overloading or strain of the insured vehicle nor for loss of or damage to accessories by burglary, house breaking or theft unless such insured vehicle is stolen at the same time and on merit contents of the complaint were totally denied and reiterated the stand taken in the preliminary objections. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint as the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated vide letter dated 14.03.2013 (Annexure R-3).

4.                     To prove the case, counsel for complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW/A and documents such as Photo copy of claim repudiation letter as Annexure C-1, Photo copy of bill dated 12.03.2013 of Saini Tractors Workshop as Annexure C-2, Photo copy of insurance policy as Annexure C-3, Photographs of tractor as Annexure C-4 to C-8 and Photo copy of insurance certificate cum insurance policy as Annexure C-9 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OPs Company tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Anil Sharma, Surveyor and Loss Assessor as Annexure RW1/B and documents such as Photo copy of surveyor report as Annexure R-1, Photo copy of insurance certificate cum insurance policy as Annexure R-2, Photo copy of claim repudiation letter dated 14.03.2013 as Annexure R-3 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs Insurance Company.

6.                     We have heard the learned counsels of both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file carefully and minutely. The counsel for the complainant reiterated the averments mentioned in the complaint and prayed for its acceptance whereas the counsel for OP reiterated the averments made in the reply and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

7.                      It is admitted fact that as per copy of RC (Annexure C-3), the complainant is a registered owner of tractor bearing registration No. HR-02-N-5586, which was insured with the OPs Insurance Company vide comprehensive policy bearing No. M0011356 valid from 21.01.2013 to 20.01.2014 for a sum assured of Rs. 3,00,000/- as per copy of Insurance Policy (Annexure R-2/C-9). It is also not disputed that on the intimation of the complainant, a Surveyor and Loss Assessor Sh. Amit Sharma was deputed by the OPs Insurance Company who submitted his report (Annexure R-1) assessing the loss of Rs. 16,700/- after applying the depreciation clause and further subject to term and conditions of the insurance policy. It is also not disputed that the claim of the complainant was repudiated by the OPs Insurance Company vide its letter dated 14.03.2013 (Annexure R-3/C-1 and reminder dated 28.03.2013 (Annexure R-4) on the ground that there was no damages to the tractor in question due to accidental external means, hence damages to the gear box is not covered under the scope of policy.  

8.                     The only question involved in the present complaint is that whether the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated by the OPs Insurance Company or not? To rebut the version of the OPs Insurance Company, the complainant has placed on file only photographs of the tractor in question as Annexure C-4 to C-8 and copy of bill bearing No. 194 dated 12.03.2013 (Annexure C-2) but from these documents it is nowhere proved that the damages to the tractor in question was due to external means. The complainant has totally failed to place on file any DDR/Copy of FIR or any other cogent evidence to prove that the tractor in question met with an accident and got damages. The complainant has himself admitted in para No.3 of the complaint that gear box (hodging) of the tractor in question was broken on 02.02.2013 while using the tractor in his field work. However, on the other hand, Surveyor and Loss Assessor has specifically mentioned in his report that  there was no damage due to external means and further it has been mentioned that insured’s driver driving the tractor alongwith trolley loaded with sugarcane at sugarcane centre Hadoli suddenly due to jerk gear box housing of tractor got broken. We have perused the terms and conditions of the insurance policy Annexure RW2/A and as per clause 2, Company was not liable to make any payment in respect of any consequential loss, depreciation, wear and tear, mechanical or electrical breakdown failure or breakage nor the damages caused by overloading or strain of the insured vehicle nor for loss of or damages to the accessories by burglary house breaking or theft unless insured vehicle is stolen at the same time.

9.                     Further, from the perusal of photo copy of registration certificate (Annexure C-3), it is also evident that tractor in question was of model year 2005 whereas the alleged incident took place on 02.02.2013 as alleged by the complainant in his complaint. Meaning thereby that the alleged incident took place after a gap of more than 7 years. So, the possibility of damages to the gear box of the tractor in question cannot be ruled out due to wear and tear. It is also pertinent to mention here that in the area of Yamuna Nagar/ Jagadhri most of the tractor owners are using their tractors for carrying overloaded sugarcane as well as populars.

10.                   In the circumstances noted above, we are of the considered view that the alleged loss to the tractor in question was not due to any external accidental means, hence, the claim of the complainant has been rightly repudiated by the OPs Insurance Company vide its repudiation letter dated 28.03.2013 (Annexure R-4) as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy.  

11.                   Resultantly, we find no merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. 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. 03.02.2017.

 

                       

                                                                        (ASHOK KUMAR GARG )

                                                                        PRESIDENT,

                                                                        DISTT.CONSUMER DISPUTES

                                                                        REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNANAGAR

 

                                                                                     

                                                                        (S.C.SHARMA )

                                                                         MEMBER.