Punjab

Sangrur

CC/236/2018

Shiv Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Amit Aggarwal

04 May 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .

 

                                                                        Complaint No. 236

 Instituted on:   10.05.2018

                                                                         Decided on:     04.05.2023

  

 

Shiv Kumar son of Jeet Ram, resident of Opposite Police Line, Sangrur.

                                                         …. Complainant.     

                                                 Versus

1.     IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office: Above Hot Chop, Kaula Park, Sangrur through its Branch Manager.

2.     IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited, Plot No.2, B&C, 4^th Floor, IFFCO Complex, Sector 28-A, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh through its Divisional Manager.

             ….Opposite parties. 

 

For complainant         : Shri Amit Aggarwal, Adv.              

For  OPs                   : Shri Darshan Gupta, Adv.

 

Quorum                                           

JOT NARANJAN SINGH GILL: PRESIDENT

SARITA GARG,                                  : MEMBER

KANWALJEET SINGH             : MEMBER

 

ORDER

JOT NARANJAN SINGH GILL, PRESIDENT

1.             Complainant has approached this Forum/Commission alleging that he purchased a truck in the month of February, 2016 having chassis. number MAT448140F3P25688 and engine number 83141, which was got financed from Kotak Mahindra Bank for the amount of Rs.22,72,000/-.  Further case of the complainant is that he got the truck insured for Rs.28,40,000/- from the OP number 1 by paying the requisite premium of Rs.60,903/- and the OP number 1 issued the policy bearing number 96335934 for the period from 3.2.2016 to 2.2.2017, but no terms and conditions were supplied to the complainant and thereafter the truck in question was got registered as PB-13-AR-2809.

2.             The case of the complainant is that on 10.6.2016 Tarlok Singh employee of the complainant was returning from Nangran, Tehsil Nangal by loading 10 mm crusher in the truck from Shri Ram Stone Crusher and when at about 7.00 AM he reached near village Valio situated on Samrala-Machiwara Road, then a truck bearing registration number PB-05-P-9297 which was going ahead suddenly applied breaks without any indication, as  a result of which the truck of the complainant struck into the backside of the said truck and then struck into the houses adjoining the road, resulting which the truck of the complainant got damaged badly. Thereafter intimation of accident was given to the OPs, who appointed surveyor and on the instructions of the surveyor the truck in question was brought to Dashmesh Automobile, Samrala, who is the authorized dealer of TATA Motors, who prepared the estimate to the tune of Rs.15,49,995/- for repairs of the truck. The complainant supplied all the documents to the surveyor. Further case of the complainant is that thereafter the truck in question was got repaired and spent an amount of Rs.15,00,000/-.  Thereafter the complainant requested the OPs to settle the claim, but nothing was done. The complainant as such filed an application before the Permanent Lok Adalat for getting the above said claim amount, but in the reply the OPs wrongly alleged that the surveyor assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.11,00,000/- and the size of the body of the truck has been changed and that the truck was overloaded.  Thereafter the complainant withdrew the application which was allowed vide its order dated 27.3.2018.  The complainant then filed the present complaint and has prayed that the Ops be directed to pay the insurance claim amount of Rs.15,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum and further to pay Rs.1,00,000/- on account of mental tension, agony, pain and  harassment and Rs.55,000/- as litigation expenses.

3.             In reply, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that this Commission has got no territorial jurisdiction, that the complaint is bad for non joinder of the parties, that the complainant has not come to this Commission with clean hands and that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint. On merits, the issuance of the insurance policy for the truck of the complainant has been admitted. Accident of the vehicle is also admitted. It is stated that after receipt of the intimation from the complainant on 10.6.2016, the OPs immediately appointed M/s. Bansal & Company, Surveyor And Loss Assessor for the assessment of the loss, who assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.11,00,000/-. It is further stated that the OPs also appointed BEE VEE Investigating Agency to investigate the cause of accident to the vehicle, who visited the spot and found that the vehicle in question was loaded with bazri upto the top of its body as is evident from the photographs and after checking the exact size of tipper load body, it was found to be length 13’-5” width 7-0”, height of the body 7’-10” i.e. enhanced by 2’-6” than its original size of load body supplied by the manufacturer. It is further averred that as per the registration certificate of gross weight of the tipper is 25000 Kg and unladen weight is 8850 Kgs so the tipper was permitted to carry 16150 KG of material as per specification of load body but the applicant had got enhanced load body of his tipper by 2’-6” to load more material, as such it seems that at the time of accident the load was around to be 28/29 tons which shows that the tipper was overloaded by 12/13 tons than its registered capacity. As such, the complainant was sent a registered letter dated 27.7.2017 to supply the documents but he failed to do so. As such, the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the policy and the complainant is not entitled to get any relief from this Commission. Lastly, the OPs have prayed that the complaint be dismissed with special costs.

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-9 affidavit of complainant, copies of bills, insurance policy and repair estimate etc and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Ops has produced Ex.OP-1 and Ex.OP-2 affidavits and closed evidence.

5.             We have gone through the pleadings put in by both the parties along with their supporting documents with their valuable assistance.

6.             The insurance of the vehicle in question  and accident of the vehicle is not disputed. The insurance policy on record is Ex.C-4 which clearly shows that the accident of the vehicle took place during the subsistence of the insurance policy. Ex.C-2 is the sworn affidavit of the complainant Shiv Kumar to support his contention in the complaint.  Ex.C-3 is the copy of bill dated 9.6.2016 showing the weight of the crusher to be 14 ton. Ex.C-5 is the copy of the estimate. Ex.C-6 is the copy of order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Sangrur on 27.3.2018.  On the other hand, the OPs have produced Ex.OP-1 affidavit of Shri Vijay Kumar Bansal, surveyor to support the written version.  Ex.OP-2 is the affidavit of Shri H.S.Bedi, Prop. Bee Vee Investigating Agency.

7.             We may mention here that though the stand of the OPs is that the body of the truck in question was modified and raised to increase the capacity of the truck, but there is no such document/repudiation letter on the file to show that the claim has been repudiated on this ground.  Moreover, there is nothing on record to show that what was the capacity of the truck in question and what weight was loaded on the truck at the time of accident.   The Ops have produced only the affidavits of Shri Vijay Kumar Bansal, Ex.OP-1 surveyor to support the written version.  Ex.OP-2 is the affidavit of Shri H.S.Bedi, Prop. Bee Vee Investigating Agency, whose observation is without any basis nor any such clear photographs have been produced on record. The photographs appended with the reply are only of the Photostat copies of the original photos by increasing their size and the same are not clear. To support the contention of the complainant, the learned counsel for the complainant has drawn our attention towards Ex.C-3, the copy of bill dated 9.6.2016 issued by Shri Ram Stone Crusher, Village Nangran,Tehsil Nangal (Ropar) wherein it has been clearly mentioned that 10 mm  14 ton Aggrehate (bajri) was loaded in the truck in question  and further to support this contention, Shri Raj Kumar Bhalla has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit wherein it has been stated that on 9.6.2016, Shri Shiv Kumar complainant purchased 14 ton 10 mm Aggrehate for the price of Rs.225/- per ton, which was loaded in the truck bearing registration number PB-13-AR-2809. On the other hand, the Ops have not produced any cogent and reliable evidence to rebut this contention of the complainant nor the OPs have produced any affidavit from the supplier of aggrehate to the complainant.  In the circumstances, we feel that the case of the complainant cannot be thrown on this ground and the OPs have miserably failed to produce on record the cogent and reliable evidence to support their contention in the written reply.

8.             Now, coming to the quantum of claim payable to the complainant.  Though the complainant has claimed an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- from the OPs for the loss suffered to the vehicle bearing number PB-13-AR-2809 in the accident. We have perused the motor final survey report Annexure-C submitted by Bansal & Company on 17.8.2016, which clearly shows that it has settled the claim at Rs.11,00,000/-.   In the circumstances, we find it to be a fit case, where the claim is required to be settled as per the survey report and the OPs are liable to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.11,00,000/-.

9.             In view of our above discussion, we partly allow the complaint and direct the Ops to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.11,00,000/- alonwith interest @ 7% per annum from filing of the present complaint i.e. 10.5.2018 till its realization.  We further direct the OPs to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.15,000/- as compensation for mental tension and harassment and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses. This order be complied with by the opposite parties within 60 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

10.            The complaint could not be decided within the statutory time period due to heavy pendency of cases

11.            A certified copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost as per rules. File be consigned to records.

                                Pronounced.

                                May 4, 2023.