Haryana

Sonipat

CC/51/2016

Deepak S/o Ramesh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

L&T General Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sushil Kaushik

29 Jul 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SONEPAT.

 

                                Complaint No.51 of 2016

                                Date of Instt. 9.2./15.2.2016  

                                Date of order:29.07.2016

 

 

Deepak son of Ramesh Kumar, resident of village Larsauli, tehsil Ganaur, distt. Sonepat.

                                           ...Complainant.

                        Versus

 

L&T Insurance Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd., 6^th Floor, DCM Building 16 Karakhamba road, Connaught Place, New Delhi through its Manager.

 

                                           ...Respondent.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. Sushil Kaushik Adv. for complainant.

           Sh. Joginder Kuhar, Adv. for respondent.

 

BEFORE-  NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT.

        SMT.PRABHA WATI, MEMBER.

        J.L. GUPTA, MEMBER

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondent alleging therein that he had purchased new tractor make Sonalika and got it insured with the respondent for the period w.e.f. 12.9.2014 to 11.9.2015.  Unfortunately, the said tractor has met with an accident on 21.12.2014 and was badly damaged.  The surveyor of the complainant has inspected the said vehicle on the same day.  The complainant has got repaired his tractor from M/s Yogesh Tractors and has spent Rs.33211/- on the repair of the tractor.  The complainant has submitted all the relevant bills to the respondent and has requested to make the payment of Rs.33211/-, but of no use and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        In reply, the respondent has submitted that despite receipt of letters from the respondent, the complainant has failed to submit the required documents and due to which, the claim of the complainant was closed vide letter dated 30.1.2015.  The tractor was insured for agricultural purposes, but at the time of accident, it was being used for commercial purposes in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.  The complainant has not suffered any mental agony or harassment at the hands of the respondent and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

 

3.        We have heard the arguments advanced by the ld. Counsel for both the parties at length and we have also gone through the entire relevant material available on the case file carefully & minutely.

 

4.        Ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that the complainant had purchased new tractor make Sonalika and got it insured with the respondent for the period w.e.f. 12.9.2014 to 11.9.2015.  Unfortunately, the said tractor has met with an accident on 21.12.2014 and was badly damaged.  The surveyor of the complainant has inspected the said vehicle on the same day.  The complainant has got repaired his tractor from M/s Yogesh Tractors and has spent Rs.33211/- on the repair of the tractor.  The complainant has submitted all the relevant bills to the respondent and has requested to make the payment of Rs.33211/-, but of no use and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.

 

          Ld. Counsel for the respondent has submitted that despite receipt of letters from the respondent, the complainant has failed to submit the required documents and due to which, the claim of the complainant was closed vide letter dated 30.1.2015.  The tractor was insured for agricultural purposes, but at the time of accident, it was being used for commercial purposes in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.  So, it cannot be said that there is any kind of deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.

          We have perused the documents Ex.R1 to R3 placed on record by the respondent.  As per these documents, the respondent wrote many letters to the complainant for supplying the valid RTO receipt and RC  of the vehicle. 

          The bare perusal of the document itself shows that the vehicle of the complainant has met with an accident on 21.12.2014, whereas it was insured w.e.f. 12.9.2014 to 11.9.2015.  It means that the complainant has purchased the vehicle on 12.9.2014.

 

          At the time of arguments, the complainant has placed on record the document marked as JN-A i.e. photo copy of RC of the damaged vehicle. The bare perusal of the above said document shows that validity of the RC of the vehicle starts from 30.9.2014 to 11.9.2029.  It means that the vehicle was registered with Registering Authority, Ganaur on 30.9.2014.  The vehicle has met with an accident on 21.12.2014. The main objection of the respondent is that the complainant has not submitted the RC before the respondent company.  The respondent insurance company wants to confirm whether the vehicle was registered with the registering authority on the date of accident or not.  The perusal of the document JN-A itself shows that the vehicle was registered on dated 30.9.2014.  Hence, in our view, the complainant is entitled for the claim regarding the damaged vehicle. The complainant has claimed Rs.33211/- from the respondent, whereas the surveyor has assessed the net liability of the respondent to the tune of Rs.21406/-.  So, in our view, the respondent is liable to make the payment of Rs.21406/- to the complainant i.e. the amount as assessed by the surveyor, because it is held by the Hon’ble Higher Courts in number of authoritative decisions that the surveyor is the best person to assess the loss and his report cannot be brushed aside.  Thus, we hereby direct the respondent to make the payment of Rs.21406/- (Rs.twenty one thousand four hundred six only) to the complainant within a period of 60 days from the date of passing of this order, failing which, the amount of Rs.21406/- shall fetch interest at the rate of 09% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint till its realization.

 

          With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed.         Certified copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of costs.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

(Prabha Wati Member) (JL Gupta Member)    (Nagender Singh-President)

                                                DCDRF, Sonepat.

Announced:  29.07.2016