DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,
SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092
C.C. NO. 1141/14
M/s. Chetan Travels
L-109-A, Dilshad Garden
New Delhi – 110 095
Through its authorized representative
Mr. Manik Chawla ….Complainant
Vs.
M/s National Insurance Co. Ltd.
Delhi Regional Office-2
Core-3, 2nd Floor, Scope Minar
Laxmi Nagar, Delhi – 110 092 ….Opponent
Date of Institution: 02.01.2015
Judgment Reserved for : 12.07.2016
Judgment Passed on : 29.07.2016
CORUM:
Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)
Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)
Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)
Order By : Shri Sukhdev Singh (President)
JUDGEMENT
The complainant has filed the complaint against M/s. National Insurance Company Limited (OP), praying for Rs. 7,44,337/- on account of repair cost of vehicle, Rs. 7,80,000/- on account of loss of 156 days, Rs. 23,130/- on account of interest cost to the bank, Rs. 4,00,000/- on account of compensation and Rs. 25,000/- towards litigation charges.
2. The facts in brief are that the complainant runs the business of Tour & Travels in the name and style of M/s. Chetan Travels. The complainant who is the registered owner of vehicle No. DL-1PC-2782 got insured with OP vide policy No. 361500/31/12/6300003855 for a period from 10.03.2013 to 09.03.2014 for the IDV value of Rs. 10,80,000/- for which the complainant paid a premium of Rs. 35,103/- to the OP. On 29.12.2014, at about 4.25 p.m., the said vehicle met with an accident at underpass of Sewa Nagar, Delhi, which was driven by Mohd. Idrish who was having valid driving license for which FIR No. 243/2013 was got registered at P.S. Lodhi Colony. This was intimated to the OP who got conducted survey and other formalities. The complainant got the repair estimate of the said vehicle from M/s. Guru Ram Das Body Builders, which was sent to OP for its approval. However, the complainant was surprised to receive the letter of OP vide reference no. Central Claims Hub/31852/2014, which was received by them in the month of March 2014. In response to the said letter, the complainant sent a representation through its letter of dated 11.03.2014. However, the complainant received a letter vide reference no. 31852 dated 01.03.2014 whereby the complainant was informed that the claim of the complainant was repudiated. However, the complainant sent its reply through letter dated 27.03.2014. It is stated that due to deliberate negligence of OP, the vehicle could not got repaired and remained stationary for 156 days due to which the complainant suffered a loss of Rs. 7,80,000/-@ Rs. 5,000/- per day. The complainant paid the entire amount of Rs. 7,44,337/- for getting the vehicle repaired. Thus, he has prayed for refund of Rs. 7,44,337/- on account of repair cost of the vehicle; Rs. 7,80,000/- on account of loss of 156 days, Rs. 23,130/- on account of interest, Rs. 4,00,000/- on account of compensation and Rs. 25,000/- towards litigation charges making a total of Rs. 19,72,467/-.
3. In the Written Statement, M/s National Insurance Co. Ltd. (OP) has taken various pleas such as the complaint was without any cause of action; accident was caused due to the negligence on the part of the civic bodies of the State Government as they neither installed any signboard or danger mark which alerts the drivers; the complainant has not come to the court with clean hands as he has suppressed the material facts; the vehicle met with an accident due to carelessness of driver of the vehicle etc. etc. It has further been stated that the OP had rightly rejected the claim of the complainant as per the terms of the policy where “the insured shall take reasonable precautions to prevent accident and shall comply with all statutory obligations” was one of the conditions. Other facts have also been denied. In Rejoinder, the complainant has controverted the pleas of the OP and have reiterated his pleas taken in the complaint.
4. In support of its claim, the complainant has examined Shri Manik Chawla, AR of the complainant who has deposed on affidavit. He has narrated the facts, which have been stated in the complaint. He has got exhibited the documents such as GPA (Ex. CW-1/1), copy of declaration (Ex. CW-1/2), Copy of RC of vehicle (Ex. CW-1/3), copy of insurance policy (Ex. CW-1/4), copy of estimate dated 08.01.2014 (Ex. CW-1/5), copy of motor claim form (Ex. CW-1/6), copy of FIR No. 243/2013 (Ex. CW-1/7), copy of permit of vehicle (Ex. CW-1/8), copy of driving license of Mohd. Idrish (Ex. CW-1/9), copy of letter dated 01.03.2014 (Ex. CW-1/10), copy of reply dated 11.03.2014 (Ex. CW-1/11), copy of letter dated 01.03.2014 (though letter is of dated 14.03.2014) (Ex. CW-1/12), copy of reply dated 27.03.2014 (Ex. CW-1/13), copy of bill dated 27.09.2014 (Ex. CW-1/14), coy of bank statement (Ex. CW-1/15) and copy of transport agreement with M/s Alstom India Ltd. dated 10.02.2013 (Ex. CW-1/16).
In defence, OP has examined Ms. Rashmi Bajra, Assistant Manager of National Insurance Co. Ltd. who has also narrated the same facts, which have been taken on the WS. She has also got exhibited copy of policy along with its terms and conditions as Ex. OP1W1/1, copy of claim form and surveyor’s report along with photographs Ex. OP1W1/2 and Ex. OP1W1/3 (Colly).
5. We have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and have perused the material placed on record. The only argument, which have been advanced on behalf of OP has been that the accident was caused due to the sole negligence of driver of vehicle and the OP had rightly rejected the claim of the claimant under terms and conditions of the policy. She has drawn the attention of the Forum to one of the conditions i.e.; “The insured shall take reasonable precautions to prevent accident and shall comply with all statutory obligations”. She has also referred to the claim form in which the reason of accident has been described by the claimant as “driver did not notice the height of underpass because there is a curve before that, when he saw, he applied brakes but due to extreme slope bus could not stop and smashed the underpass”.
On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the complainant has argued that the accident has not been caused due to the negligence of the drive. To appreciate the arguments of Ld. Counsel for the parties, firstly, a look has to be made to FIR No. 243/2013 (EX. CW-1/7) which has been registered under Section 279/337 of IPC. The FIR has been registered at the instance of Ajit Kumar, who was one of the passengers, travelling in the bus. It has been stated in the FIR that to attend the marriage of his friend, he along with others travelled by bus no. DL-1PC=2782 from Dilshad Garden to Hauz Khas Church. When it reached at Sewa Nagar underpass, driver of the bus viz; Mohd. Idrish, was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and hit the bridge, though, this bridge was used for small vehicles, they all suffered injuries. In the claim form, it has been stated that the driver did not notice the height of underpass because there was a curve before that. From the contents of the FIR, which has been got registered at the instance of Ajit Kumar, one of the passengers, there was negligence on the part of the driver. Under Clause 39, legal liability to persons employed in connection with the operation and/or maintaining and/or loading and/or unloading all motor vehicles, it has been stated under provisio 2 “the insured shall take reasonable precautions to prevent accident and shall comply with all statutory obligations”. From the reading of this provisio, it is evident that a duty has been cost upon the insurer to take all reasonable precautions to prevent accident and comply with the statutory obligations. When that is so, it was the duty of the insurer to take reasonable precautions to prevent accidents. In the present case, as is evident from FIR No. 243 dated 29.12.2013, registered under Section 279/337 of IPC, negligence on the part of the driver has been shown. It has been categorically stated in the FIR that the driver was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently and he hit the bridge, which was only for the use of small vehicles. That being so, the accident has occurred due to the negligence of the driver and under the conditions of the policy; the liability of the insurance company was not made out. Hence, the repudiation of the claim on the part of the insurance company was justified. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was deficiency on the part of the insurance company for which the company was to be made liable.
6. In view of the above findings, we are of the opinion that there was not deficiency on the part of the insurance company. Thus, the insurance company was not liable and the complaint deserves dismissal and stands dismissed.
Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.
File be consigned to Record Room.
DR. P.N. TIWARI) (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)
Member Member
(SUKHDEV SINGH)
President
