Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/212/2023

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S LSR INFRACON PVT. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

J P NAHAR ADV.

11 Jan 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T. CHANDIGARH

[ADDITIONAL BENCH]

============

Appeal No	:	A/212/2023
Date  of  Institution	:	01/09/2023
Date   of   Decision	:	11/01/2024

 

 

 

 

 

1]   The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., DSS-312, 1^st Floor, Sector 20, Panchkula, Haryana, through its Authorized Signatory/ Office Incharge.

 

2]   The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office at SCO 37-38, 1^st Floor, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh, through its Sr. Divisional Manager.

 

3]   The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Regional Office at SCO 36-37, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh, through its Deputy General Manager.

 

     Now all through their Authorized Signatory Vishal Malhotra, Administrative Officer and Power of Attorney Holder of the New India Assurance Co. Limited., Regional Office, SCO 36-37, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh.

 

…. Appellants

 

V E R S U S

 

M/s LSR Infracon Pvt. Ltd., (Earlier known as M/s LSR Logistics Pvt. Limited), VPO Daulatpur Chowk, Tehsil Amb, District Una (Himachal Pradesh), through its Manager – Kamal Singh.

…… Respondent

 

BEFORE:   MRS. PADMA PANDEY       PRESIDING MEMBER

          PREETINDER SINGH        MEMBER

 

PRESENT	:	Sh. J.P. Nahar, Advocate for the Appellants.
		Sh. Sankalp Mittal, Advocate for the Respondent.

 

PER PREETINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

 

 

This appeal is directed against the order dated 13.07.2023, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh (for brevity hereinafter to be referred as “the Ld. Lower Commission”), vide which, it partly allowed the Consumer Complaint bearing no.CC/416/2022, in the following terms: -

“16. In view of the foregoing it is held that the OPs have illegally repudiated the genuine claim of the complainant, which amounts to deficiency in rendering service and  so they are liable to compensate the complainant. Hence, the present consumer complaint partly succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OPs are directed as under:-

i)   to pay amount Rs.18,03,033/- towards claim to the complainant with interest @9% P.A. from the date of repudiation of claim till realization.

ii)  to pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him.

iii) to pay Rs.20,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

17.  This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.”

2.      For the convenience, the parties are being referred to, in the instant Appeal, as position held in Consumer Complaint before the Ld. Lower Commission.
3.      Before the Ld. Lower Commission, it was the case of the Complainant (Respondent herein) that it purchased Contractors Plant and Machinery Policy (Floater basis) valid from 15.04.2020 to 14.04.2021 from the Opposite Parties covering vibratory soil compactor. During the currency of the policy, said machine vibratory soil compactor met with an accident on 02.04.2021 in Damin District Kurang Kumey, Arunachal Pradesh as it slipped from the road and fell into a deep Gorge as a result whereof the soil compactor was severally and completely damaged. On 05.04.2021 due intimation with regard to the said loss was given to the Opposite Parties who deputed a surveyor to assess the loss after a gap of 46 days which was against the relevant regulation of IRDA. The complainant supplied all the required documents to the Opposite Parties and thereafter, visited the Opposite Parties numerous time for settlement of claim, but to utter surprise the Opposite Parties vide letter dated 17.12.2021 repudiated the claim of the complainant on the flimsy grounds that the operator of the vibratory soil compactor was not properly trained to operate the machine as no training certificate was submitted and secondly the accident took place at Arunachal Pradesh whereas area of operation mentioned in the insurance policy is Kinnaur, District Himachal Pradesh. It was alleged, the Opposite Parties with an intention to avoid indemnification of claim amount of ₹18,03,033/- repudiated the claim on the flimsy ground that the operator was not trained; whereas, the complainant duly handed over the training certificate to the surveyor and Opposite Parties and also the location of Arunanchal Pradesh was clearly mentioned in the proposal form prior to issuance of policy. Hence, the aforesaid Consumer Complaint was filed before the Ld. Lower Commission, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.

 

4.      In the reply filed before the Ld. Lower Commission, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, the Opposite Parties (Appellants herein) pleaded that the loss was intimated to them on 05.04.2021 upon which they deputed a surveyor who inspected the vehicle and assessed the loss to the tune of ₹18,03,033/- and submitted his report on 01.11.2021. Thereafter, the claim was processed and after scrutiny of documents, it was observed that though the surveyor has assessed the loss to the tune of ₹18,03,033/- but he did not recommended the claim for payment. The surveyor held that the claim was not admissible firstly on the ground that the operator of the vibratory machine was not properly trained to operate  the machine as no training certificate was submitted by the insured and secondly the accident took place at Arunachal Pradesh; whereas, the area of operation was mentioned in the policy is Kinnaur, Himachal Pradesh. It was asserted that the Opposite Parties were liable to indemnify only if the loss would have occurred at a place mentioned in the schedule attached to the insurance policy and not any other place. Thus the claim of the complainant was repudiated in view of the terms & conditions of the policy. Denying all other allegations and pleading no deficiency in service, the Opposite Parties prayed for dismissal of the Complaint.

 

5.      On appraisal of the pleadings and the evidence adduced on record, Ld. Lower Commission partly allowed the consumer Complaint of the Complainant/ Respondent, as noticed in the opening para of this order.     

 

6.      Aggrieved against the aforesaid order passed by the Ld. Lower Commission, the instant Appeal has been filed by the Appellants/Opposite Parties.

 

7.      We have heard Learned Counsel  for the parties and have also gone through the evidence and record of the case, with utmost care and circumspection.

 

8.      The core question that falls for consideration before us is as to whether the Ld. Lower Commission has rightly passed the impugned order by appreciating the entire material placed before it. 

 

9.      After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions raised and material on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the instant Appeal is liable to be dismissed for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.

 

10.      Admittedly, the subject policy which had been issued by the Opposite Parties was a Floater Policy, which covered more than one location viz-a-viz Arunachal Pradesh, Leh and Kinnaur. It has come on record that these locations have specifically mentioned in the proposal form dated 15.04.2020 (Annexure C-7) and thereafter, due premium was paid by the Complainant for its transit at the aforesaid three locations.

 

11.      Record shows, the operator of the soil compactor in question was capable to run machine and to fortify the same a certificate was also annexed with the Complaint which accounts of Annexure C-5. The Ld. Lower Commission after aptly noticing the Marine Cargo Specific Voyage Policy (Annexure C-9 to C-11) recorded a cogent finding that the Appellants/ Opposite Parties knew very well about the transition location of the machine and the place where it was allowed to be operated. Thus, it cannot be said that the driver of the machine was not properly trained to operate the machine and the accident took place at Arunanchal Pradesh; whereas, according to the Policy the area of operation mentioned was as Kinnaur, Himachal Pradesh. It is important to quote that in terms of Regulation 9.1 of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (Protection of Policyholders’ Interests) Regulations, 2002, duly reproduced in Para No.12 by the Ld. Lower Commission, it was incumbent upon the Appellants/ Opposite Parties to appoint an IRDA approved licensed Surveyor/ Loss Assessor, within 72 hours of the receipt of intimation of loss; whereas, the same was appointed after 46 days, which runs counter to the said guidelines.   

 

12.      It is a matter of fact that upon intimation of loss to the Appellants/Opposite Parties (Insurance Company), they deputed a Surveyor who inspected the vehicle and assessed the loss to the tune of ₹18,03,033/-. Notwithstanding this, the Opposite Parties did not finalize the claim and rather went to repudiate the same. It is settled proposition of law that the surveyor’s report is an important document and cannot be brushed aside without any cogent evidence to the contrary. We are of the opinion that in the absence of any reason to disbelieve the Surveyor’s report, the same deserves to be accepted and the amount recommended by the Surveyor ought to have been awarded. Reliance has rightly been placed by the Ld. Lower Commission on “New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Rabindra Narayan”, reported in I (2010) CPJ 80 (NC). The Ld. Lower Commission has, therefore, rightly held the Complaint entitled for the claim of ₹18,03,033/- as assessed by the Surveyor, along with compensation and cost of proceedings. 

 

13.      No other point was urged, by the Learned Counsel for the parties.

 

14.      It is demonstrable from a reading of the impugned Order of the Ld. Lower Commission that it is certainly not an order passed without reasons or without applying the judicious mind. The facts and circumstances of the case have been gone into, weighed and considered, and due analysis of the same has been made. It also does not appear to be an order passed without taking into account the available evidence.

 

15.      In the wake of the position, as sketched out above, we are dissuaded to interfere with the impugned order rendered by the Ld. Lower Commission. The appeal being bereft of merit is accordingly dismissed and the order of the Ld. Lower Commission is upheld.

 

16.      The pending application(s), if any, stand disposed off as having become infructuous.

 

17.      Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

 

18.      The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced

11^th Jan., 2024

               Sd/-

                                  (PADMA PANDEY)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(PREETINDER SINGH)

MEMBER

“Dutt”