Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/19/23

M/s Multiform Logistics Pvt.Ltd - Complainant(s)

Versus

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co.Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Rajeev Abhi Adv.

11 Jul 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 23 dated 07.01.2019.                                                Date of decision: 11.07.2022.

 

M/s. Multiform Logistics Pvt. Ltd., Fleet Owners and Transport Contractors, Registered Office at Plot No.553, Lane No.3, G.T.B. Nagar, Mundian Kalan, Ludhiana through its Director Shri Krishan Pal Singh, authorized vide resolution passed in the meeting of the Board of Directors held on 28.11.2018.                                                                                    ..…Complainant

•  

1. Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd., Registered Office at Iffco Sadan, C-1, District Center, Saket, New Delhi through its Managing Director.
2. Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd., having its branch office at 1^st Floor, Sohan Singh Complex, Near Railway Crossing, Shastri Nagar, Ludhiana, Punjab-141002 through its Branch Manager.                                                                                                   …..Opposite parties 

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Rajeev Abhi, Advocate.

For OPs                          :         Sh. Vyom Bansal, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

1.                Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that the complainant company got its trailer bearing No.PB-08-CP-9329 insured from OP2 for a IDV of Rs.8,10,000/- vide package policy No.50177858 which was valid from 29.01.2017 to 28.01.2018. A premium of Rs.40615.73 was paid. No detailed terms and conditions of the policy were supplied to the complainant. On 29.07.2017, the trailer in question was taken from village Sahni to Doraha after loading the goods. As the trailer horse developed some defect at village Sahni, Gurdeep Singh, driver of the trailer parked the trailer at Nirmal Weighing Bridge as there was no parking space to park the same at the workshop and took the vehicle horse to Transport Nagar, Ludhiana for getting it repaired. 30.07.2017 happened to be holiday being Sunday. On 31.07.2017 at about 11.00 AM, when Gurdeep Singh driver went to Nirmal Weighing Bridge after getting the horse-vehicle repaired, he found that the trailer was not there and some un-known persons had stolen the same. The driver tried to look out for the trailer but it could not be found anywhere. In this regard, an intimation was given to the police on the same day though the FIR was registered on the statement of Krishan Pal Singh, Director of the complainant company vide FIR No.289 dated 22.11.2017 under Section 379 IPC. It is further alleged that the complainant lodged claim of theft of trailer with the OPs on 31.07.2017 amounting to Rs.7,70,000/- and also supplied all the required documents. The OPs registered the claim and appointed M/s. Prisum Insurance Consultant, New Delhi as investigator to investigate the claim. The OPs were supposed to decide the fate of the claim within 3-4 months as per IRDA guidelines but the OPs took more than one year. Eventually, the OPs vide letter dated 31.08.2018 repudiated the claim on false and flimsy grounds. This amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. In the end, it has been requested that the repudiation letter dated 31.08.2018 be set aside and the OPs be directed to reimburse the claim of Rs.7,70,000/- being IDV value of the trailer along with interest @12% per annum and further the OPs be also made to be compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- on account of deficiency of service and for causing mental tension, pain and agony to the complainant.

2.                The complaint has been resisted by the OPs. In the written statement filed on behalf of the OPs it has been, inter alia, pleaded that on receipt of the claim, the same was registered and M/s. Prism Insurance Consultants was deputed to investigate the loss. The investigator collected the documents from the complainant, visited the spot and submitted his report dated 08.03.2018 along with documents. After thoroughly examining the case and terms and condition of the policy, the claim was found to be not payable and was repudiated vide letter dated 31.08.2018. According to the OPs, the policy in question was only for the towing vehicle i.e. self propelled vehicle (Horse unit) and the policy was not extended to the trailer attached to such vehicle and nor any premium was paid for insuring the trailer as is evident from the policy schedule itself. Therefore, the OPs were not bound to pay the claim of theft of the trailer which was not at all insured under the policy in question. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied as wrong and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.

3.                In evidence, Sh.Krishan Pal Singh, Director of the complainant company submitted his affidavit as Ex. CA along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C19 and closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs tendered affidavit Ex. RA of Sh. Rajiv Ranjan, General Manager of the OPs along with document Ex. R1 to Ex. R3 and closed the evidence.

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through records.

6.                During the course of arguments, the counsel for the complainant has argued that the trailer cannot be treated as a separate vehicle; rather it becomes a part of the horse vehicle with which it is attached and the trailer was not required to be insured separately. In this regard, the counsel for the complainant has referred to the Motor Vehicle Act Section 2 (28) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 which defines motor vehicle or vehicle means any mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use upon roads whether the power of propulsion is transmitted thereto from an external or internal source and includes a chassis to which a body has not been attached and a trailer; but does not include a vehicle running upon fixed rails or a vehicle of a special type adapted for use only in a factory or in any other enclosed premises or a vehicle having less than four wheels fitted with engine capacity of not exceeding 4[twenty-five cubic centimetres]". The counsel for the complainant has further relied upon Section 2(46) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 which defines the trailer means any vehicle, other than a semi-trailer and a side-car, drawn or intended to be drawn by a motor vehicle. The counsel for the complainant has further relied upon M/s. The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sh. Pritpal Singh in First Appeal From order No.1392 of 1995 decided by the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court whereby it has been held that even though a trailer may be drawn by a motor vehicle, it by itself is a motor vehicle and both the tractor and the trailer taken together would constitute a transport vehicle. It has further been held that the very fact that the trailer has been included within the definition of “motor vehicle” clearly shows that the legislature did not intend to exclude the tractor together with a trailer/trolley from the definition of the ‘motor vehicle’. The counsel for the complainant has further relied upon United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Surinder Singh and others in 2006 ACJ 1285 whereby the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh has held that the definition of the tractor shows that the tractor itself is not able to carry any load without the trolley. Therefore, any equipment attached to the tractor is a part of the tractor and covered under the insurance policy. The counsel for the complainant has further relied upon United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Anita Singhal and others in 2011(3) RCR (Civil) 520 whereby it has been held by the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court the trolley, not being a complete Motor Vehicle, is not required to be separately insured and for the liability arising out of accident with the trolley attached to the tractor, the insurer would be liable to indemnify the insured.

7.                On the other hand, the counsel for the OPs has argued that since the trailer was not covered under the policy schedule nor any premium was paid separately qua the trailer, its loss by way of theft cannot be indemnified by the OPs being not covered under the policy. It has also been pointed out by the counsel for the OPs that in the certificate cum policy schedule Ex. R1, the IDV was mentioned as Rs.8,10,000/-  whereas the IDV of the trailer is mentioned as ZERO which indicates that no insurance was obtained for the trailer.  In this regard, the counsel for the OPs has relied upon India Motor Tariff which provides separate tariff for the trailers. Section B of the Indian Motor Tariff clearly provides that the policy covering the towing vehicle may be extended to include the trailer or a separate policy for the trailers, the premium is to be charged at the schedule of rates given herein. The counsel for the OPs has further argued that it is clear from the Indian Motor Tariff that the trailers are either to be separately insured or the insurance of the tractor can be covered with the towing vehicle but in both cases a premium has to be paid separately in respect of the trailer. The counsel for the OPs has further contended that since as per the policy, no premium separately for the trailer or jointly with the towing vehicle has been paid, the trailer cannot be said to have been covered under the policy.  The counsel for the OPs has relied upon Jai Bhagwan and another Vs Koshalya and others FAO No.660 of 2010 (O&M) decided on 29.04.2014 by the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh. In this case, the point involved was whether the trailer was required to be covered by separate policy cover or not. It was held in this case that the trailer by itself was not a transport vehicle. As per Indian Motor Tariff (Category B) the premium is payable for a trailer. The tractor becomes a goods carrier only if it is attached to a trailer which is intended to carry goods. In the Indian Motor Tariff, there is a provision for tariff for miscellaneous types of vehicle in the schedule which contains reference to both tractor and trailer. If clause 4 states that the trailer is not be insured separately, it does not mean that insurance is not necessary for trailers attached to tractors used for agricultural purposes. It only means that an insurer shall not undertake a risk for a trailer separately without reference to a tractor. It was further held that a tractor and trailer having different registration numbers would still require a comprehensive insurance for both the tractor and trailer if the trailer is attached to a tractor and used for any purpose be it agricultural or commercial. Therefore, it will be wrong to understand from clause 4 relating to trailer in category D that no premium is necessary for trailers. It was further held that non-insurance of the trailer in such case would mean that the trailer that caused the accident although attached to a tractor insured but has no scope for indemnity to be provided to the owner and driver.

8.                We have thoughtfully considered the above contentions raised by the counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record as well as law cited by the counsel for the parties.

9.                The only question which begs for an answer in this case is whether the trailer attached with the main carrier vehicle is liable to be treated as insured under the policy Ex. R1 or not or that the insurance policy was restricted to the main vehicle excluding trailer, IDV of which is stated to be Zero in the policy Ex. R1. As per Section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicle Act, the motor vehicle or vehicle means any mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use upon roads whether the power of propulsion is transmitted thereto from an external or internal source and includes a chassis to which a body has not been attached and a trailer; but does not include a vehicle running upon fixed rails or a vehicle of a special type adapted for use only in a factory or in any other enclosed premises or a vehicle having less than four wheels fitted with engine capacity of not exceeding 4[twenty-five cubic centimetres]; 1[twenty-five cubic centimetres]. In the Section, it is clearly mentioned that a trailer is included in the definition of motor vehicle/vehicle. Section 2(46) of the Motor Vehicle Act further defines the trailer means any vehicle, other than a semi-trailer and a side-car, drawn or intended to be drawn by a motor vehicle. In United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Anita Singhal and others (Supra) relied upon by the counsel for the complainant, it has been held by the Divisional Bench of the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court that a tractor and the trailer could not be treated as separate vehicles and that by driving the tractor rashly and negligently, the insurer would be liable to a third party even though trailer is not insured. In this very case, there is a reference to the law laid down in United India Insurance Company Vs Pritpal Singh and others 1996(2) RRR 335:1996(2) PLR 49 whereby the Divisional Bench has held that even though a trailer may be drawn by a motor vehicle, it by itself is not a motor vehicle and both the tractor and the trailer taken together would constitute a transport vehicle. It was further held that if consequently, there was a policy of insurance for a tractor as a motor vehicle, it would insure to the claim arising out of an accident involving the trailer attached to the insured tractor. There is another reference to the law laid down in United India Insurance Vs Surinder and others 2006 ACJ 1285 whereby it was held that in relation to a tractor, which was insured comprehensively for agricultural purposes, a tractor being not designed to carry any load without equipment to mean that an accident caused by even a trailer attached to a tractor would make the insurer liable, no matter that premium for trailer has been paid or not. Therefore, it is amply clear that the carrier vehicle would not be a vehicle unless the trailer is attached with it with the help of which it can only transport goods would be a vehicle.  Therefore, as discussed in the afore cited cases, the trailer would be deemed to be covered under the policy being an integral part of the vehicle even though it was not specifically or separately insured in the policy. It appears to be quite a reasonable interpretation that once the carrier-vehicle is insured which cannot be treated as a complete vehicle without a trailer, the insurance of the trailer would be automatic once the vehicle itself was insured.

10.              The counsel for the OPs has relied upon Jai Bhagwan and another Vs Koshalya and others (Supra) whereby it has been held that Indian Motor Tariff in its Section 4 provides for payment of tariff for commercial vehicles of different categories A to G. The category G is applicable to any truck, cart, carriage or other vehicle, including agricultural implements, without means of self-propulsion, drawn or hauled by any self-propelled vehicle is referred to as trailer for the purpose of this tariff. It was further held in this very case that since the Indian Motor Tariff under category B provides premium payable for trailer. It was further held in this very case that tractor and trailer having different registration numbers would still require a comprehensive insurance for both the tractor and trailer if the trailer attached to a tractor and used for any purpose be it agricultural or commercial. It has further been held in this very case that non-insurance of the trailer in such case would mean that the trailer that caused the accident although attached to a tractor insured allowed for no scope for indemnity to be provided to the owner and driver.

11.              We have thoughtfully examined the law laid down in Jai Bhagwan and another Vs Koshalya and others (Supra). In the very beginning under category B titled as Tariff for trailer, it is specifically mentioned that the policies covering towing vehicles may be extended to include the trailer or a separate policy may be issued to cover the trailers. The premium has to be charged in either case at the rates given under this rule.  However, considering the law laid down by the Divisional Bench in United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Anita Singhal and others (Supra) it has been clearly held that the trolley, being not a complete motor vehicle is not required to be separately insured and further the liability arising out of the accident with the trolley attached to the insured tractor insurer would be liable to indemnify 5the insured. In the instant case also since the trailer was not a vehicle in itself and the carrier vehicle would also not have been complete without a trailer even if no premium is shown to have been qua the trailer nor any IDV of the trailer is mentioned in the policy. Even though the trailer would be deemed to have been covered under the policy and the insurer cannot eschew its liability to indemnify the insured merely on the ground that the trailer was not separately insured. Moreover, in Jai Bhagwan and another Vs Koshalya and others (Supra) the tractor and the trolley were separately registered whereas it is not so in the instant case. Under the circumstances, in our considered view, it would be just and proper if the OPs are directed to reimburse the claim in respect of the theft of the trailer strictly as per terms and conditions of the policy along with composite cost of Rs.5,000/-.

12.              As a result of above discussion, the complaint is allowed with direction to the OPs to reimburse the claim in respect of the theft of the trailer strictly as per terms and conditions of the policy to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. The OPs shall further pay a composite cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) to the complainant. Compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

13.              Due to rush of work and spread of COVID-19, the case could not be decided within statutory period.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:11.07.2022.

Gobind Ram.

M/s. Multiform Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Vs Iffco Tokio GIC            CC/19/23

Present:       Sh. Rajeev Abhi, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh. Vyom Bansal, Advocate for OPs.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint is allowed with direction to the OPs to reimburse the claim in respect of the theft of the trailer strictly as per terms and conditions of the policy to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. The OPs shall further pay a composite cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) to the complainant. Compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:11.07.2022.

Gobind Ram.