District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.

Consumer Complaint  No.198/2022.

 Date of Institution:07.04.2022.

Date of Order:31.05.2024.

M/s. K.K.Concrete Products, Tigaon Road, Ballabgarh, Faridabad, Haryana through its Authorized representative Mr. Ajay Goyal.

                                                                   …….Complainant……..

                                                Versus

1.                M/s.  New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Regd. Office at: 87, M.G.road, Fort, Mumbai, Maharashtra – 400 001 through its General Manager.

2.                Branch Manager, M/s. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office (3127010 Akash Cinema Complex, Mohna Road, Ballabgarh, Faridabad, Haryana.

                                                                   …Opposite parties……

Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Now  amended  Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.

BEFORE:            Amit Arora……………..President

Indira Bhadana………….Member.

PRESENT:                   Sh. Atul Khatri, counsel for the complainant.

Sh. D.K.Gosain, counsel for the opposite parties Nos.1 & 2.

ORDER:  

                             The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant firm was engage in sale-purchase of building construction materials as well as concrete made products in the Delhi- NCR area.  Being in construction line, complainant owned and possessed one heavy goods vehicle carrier “Dumper” make Ashok Leyland Ltd. Bearing engine No. JWPZ157488, chassis No. MB1TRKHD4KPJG5361 having regd. No. HR-38AA-9948 for transportation of building material to the requisite sites.  The said “Dumper” bearing regd. NO. HR38AA9948 was insured by opposite party No.1 through its branch office i.e opposite party NBo.2 for the period commenced form 14.05.2020 to 13.05.2021 vide policy No. 31270131200300000705.  Abruptly on 28.10.2020 at 10:30 p.m. the said vehicle bearing regd. No. HR38AA9948 met with an accident while unloading the tone dust at Factory Site of complainant company at K.K.Concrete Products Ballabgarh for which complainant lodged an insurance claim with the opposite parties Nos.1 and 2 against which opposite party No.2 sent its surveyor for the assessment of loss/damage occurred in the vehicle of the complainant due to accident.  As per the demand of the said surveyor, complainant provided him all requisite document such as fitness certificate, route permit, valid driver license, load carrying capacity, loaded goods invoice etc. of vehicle and on the basis of inspection done by the said surveyor, a d detailed report of accident was submitted to opposite party. Thereafter complainant enquired about the honouring of claim lodged by him but to the utter surprise of the complainant, the insurance claim was rejected by opposite party No.2 on arbitrary ad baseless grounds notwithstanding all the documents regarding fitness of vehicle, route permit, valid driver license, load carrying capacity, loaded goods invoice etc. of vehicle had been provided with the surveyor sent by the opposite parties Nos.1 & 2.  Thereafter, the complainant approached the opposite party No.2 and tried to make him understand and requested him to pass the claim but nothing avail.  Needless to mention that the complainant had also submitted all the requisite documents mentioned above to the opposite party No.2, but opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 abruptly rejected the insurance claim of the complainant vehicle although the surveyor report clearly shows damage of vehicle due to accident.  At last, complainant had paid all the expenses with its own and get repaired the vehicles and spent approximately Rs.1,94,278/-.  The complainant had purchased a valid insurance policy from the opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 with an assurance that at a proper time, the benefits of the said policy would be devolve upon the complainant but the same had been denied by the opposite parties without any rhyme and reason.The aforesaid act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint.  The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to:

a)                re-imburse the claim of Rs.1,94,278/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of illegally rejected claim till the date of payment to the complainant thereof.

 b)                pay Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .

c)                any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the complaint may also be granted in favour of the complainants and against the opposite parties.

2.                Opposite parties Nos.1 & 2  put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted  that the complainant was not the consumer of the opposite parties as policy No. 31270131200300000705 which was obtained by the complainant in respect of dumper NO. HR-38-AA-9948 was cancelled by the opposite parties from the date of its issue as cheque given by the complainant towards premium for obtaining the said policy was dishonoured with the remarks “Funds insufficient” on 09.06.2020 and hence this Hon’ble Commission had got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint. The complaint of the complainant was not maintainable before this Hon’ble Commission as the complainant had purchased the dumper No. HR-38-AA-9948 for its commercial use. The complainant had neither any cause of action nor locus standi to file the present complaint.  It was further submitted that as on receipt of the damage claim in respect of the vehicle NO. HR-38-AA-9948 the replying opposite party got the same processed and investigated by the appointing IRDA licensed independent surveyor and loss assessor Harish Chawla, who carried out the spot survey of the vehicle and submitted his report dated 30.10.2020 to the company.  However, the claim of the complainant was not found admissible as the policy in question was cancelled  on 09.06.2020 on account of dishonor of cheque of premium amount by the bank of the complainant for “Insufficient funds” and the complainant was not having any insurable interest.Opposite parties Nos. 1 & 2 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.                The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.

5.                In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite parties– New India Assurance company Limited with the prayer to re-imburse the claim of Rs.1,94,278/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of illegally rejected claim till the date of payment to the complainant thereof.

                   To establish his case, the complainant has led in his evidence Ex.CW1/A – affidavit of Ajay Goyal, Authorized representative, M/s. K.K.Concrete Products, Tigaon Road, Ballabgarh,, Ex.C1 – legal notice, Ex.C-2 & 3 – postal receipts,, Ex.C-4 – motor survey report,, Ex.C-5 – survey fee bill/receipt, Ex.C-6 (colly) – photographs, Ex.C-7 -  permit in respect of National Permit Heavy Goods Vehicle Part B, Ex.C-8 – insurance policy,, Ex.C9 – E-receipt,, Ex.C-10 –Driving licence, Ex.C-11 – Tax invoice,, Ex.C-12 – estimate,, Ex.C-13 – bill/cash memo.

                   On the other hand counsel for the opposite partiesNos.1 & 2 strongly agitated and opposed.  As per the evidence of the opposite partiesNos.1 & 2 Ex.RW1/A – affidavit of  Anju Narad, Assistant Manager, New India Assurance Company limited at Rangoli Building, 1-2 Chowk, NIT, Faridabad., Ex.R-1 Cheque dishonor, Ex.R-2 – photocopy of cheque, Ex.R-3 – CT Return Cheque, Ex.R-4 – cancellation of policy.

6.                In this case, the complaint of the complainant has been filed with the prayer  to re-imburse the claim of Rs.1,94,278/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of illegally rejected claim till the date of payment to the complainant thereof.  To prove his case, the complainant has led in his evidence  Ex.C-1 to C-13.  On the other hand, opposite parties led in their evidence Ex.R-1 to R-4.

7.                As per letters dated 09.06.2020 vide  Ex. R-1 & R-4  policy No. 31270131200300000705 which was obtained by the complainant in respect of dumper NO. HR-38-AA-9948 was cancelled by the opposite parties from the date of its issue as cheque given by the complainant towards premium for obtaining the said policy was dishonoured with the remarks “Funds insufficient” on 09.06.2020.  Hence, no deficiency on the part of the opposite parties have been proved. Resultantly, the complaint is dismissed. Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.

Announced on: 31.05.2024                                  (Amit Arora)

                                                                                  President

                     District Consumer Disputes

           Redressal  Commission, Faridabad.

                                                                                        (Indira Bhadana)

     Member

          District Consumer Disputes

                                                                                Redressal Commission, Faridabad.