Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.

                                                                   Complaint No. : 443.

                                                                   Instituted on     : 17.09.2018.

                                                                   Decided on       : 27.01.2021.

Naresh s/o Lakhi Ram R/o Village-Humayunpur, District-Rohtak.

                                                                                ………..Complainant.

                                                Vs.

IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited Regd. Office IFFCO Sadan, CI District Centre Saket, New Delhi-110017 through its Director.

……….Opposite party.

COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.

BEFORE:  SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.

                   DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.

                   MS.TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.

Present:       Sh.Raj Karan, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh.R.K.Behl Advocate for opposite party.  

                                      ORDER

NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:

1.                          Brief facts of the case are that complainant is registered owner of Swaraj-744 tractor bearing registration No.HR-12Z-1196 and the same was insured with the opposite party vide policy no.1-DEV0CC1=50988140  for a period from 07.03.2017 to 06.03.2018 for a sum of Rs.430000/-. The alleged vehicle of the complainant met with an accident in April 2017 at Village-Nagar, Tehsil Gohana, Distt. Sonepat and was badly damaged. The complainant duly informed the opposite party about the accident and vehicle of the complainant was got surveyed and photographed. Thereafter the vehicle was taken to service station and was got repaired and an amount of Rs.158260/- was spent on the repairing of said vehicle. The complainant applied for insurance claim but the official of respondent has raised unnecessary objections with intention to linger on the claim of the complainant. Complainant requested the opposite party to disburse the claim amount in his favour but despite his repeated requests, claim has not been settled by the opposite party. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to pay the claim amount of Rs.158260/- along with interest, compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant as explained in relief clause.     

2.                          After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party. Opposite party in its reply has submitted that on intimation of loss to the tractor No.HR-12Z-1196 the insurance company deputed Sh. Manoj Puri, Surveyor and Loss Assessor duly licenced by the IRDA, a statutory body to assess the loss. As per physical verification of the vehicle surveyor assessed the loss for Rs.97500/- without prejudice less depreciation, salvage etc. and as per the discussion with the repairer and insured. Surveyor mentioned in his report that two persons were sitting on the tractor as against the sitting capacity of one. This is a breach of Motor Vehicle Act and as well as violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. After legal process of the claim company rightly close the file as No claim and information was given to the insured vide registered AD letter dated 31.08.2017. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of respondent and complaint is liable to be dismissed. Opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

3.                          Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C18 and closed his evidence on 12.07.2019. Ld. counsel for the opposite party has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, Ex.RW1/B, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R4 and has closed his evidence on dated 28.02.2020.

4.                          We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.

5.                          The claim of the complainant was repudiated by the insurance company vide letter dated 31.08.2017 on the ground that two passengers were travelling in the vehicle whereas as per RC sitting capacity of the vehicle is one. So there is a breach of Motor Vehicle Act as well as policy terms and conditions and hence the claim of the complainant was repudiated on this ground.

6.                In this regard we have considered all the documents and the authorities cited by ld. Counsel for the complainant i.e. IV(2010)CPJ315(NC) titled as National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pravinbhai D.Prajapati and III(2010)CPJ62(NC) titled as New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Mam Chand Matania. The insurance company turned down the claim of the complainant on the ground that in claim form Ex.R3 number of persons travelling in the vehicle at the time of accident has been mentioned as two but we have also considered Sr. No.6 of claim form whereby it is mentioned that complainant was coming from Kharkhodha and an uncontrolled Pickup was coming from the right side of the road in high speed and he straightway hit into the tractor, due to which he and his tractor suffered loss. In the claim form, it has not been mentioned anywhere that two persons were sitting on the tractor but bare perusal of the documents itself shows that the policy is a commercial policy and in the present case the complainant was driving his tractor alongwith trolley and the sugarcane was loaded in the trolley. If an another person was sitting in the trolley to protect the loaded sugercane, in that situation, he is not liable for the cause of accident. After considering all the documents placed on file, it is observed that complainant only was driving the vehicle at the time of accident and he was the sole person on the tractor at the material time of accident and another person was not responsible for the cause of accident because he was in rear part of the vehicle i.e. trolley. As such the repudiation of claim on the ground of breach of policy terms and conditions is illegal and the opposite party is liable to pay the claim amount to the complainant as per survey report Ex.R2.

7.                          Accordingly, the present complaint is allowed and opposite party is hereby directed to pay the claim amount of Rs.97500/-(Rupees ninety seven thousand five hundred only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e.17.09.2018 till its realization and shall also pay Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.

8.                         Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

27.01.2021.

                                                                                                ........................................................

                                                          Nagender Singh Kadian, President

                                                          ………………………………….

                                                          Renu Chaudhary, Member.

                                                          …………………………………..

                                                          Tripti Pannu, Member.