Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/14/550

Ramandeep Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

National Ins.Co.Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Harpreet Singh

27 Mar 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Complaint No: 550 of 08.08.2014

                                                                                   Date of Decision: 27.03.2015

                                                                                                                   

Ramandeep Singh S/o Sh.Amrit Pal Singh resident of 411-L, Model Town, Ludhiana.

……Complainant

Versus 

National Insurance Company Ltd., G.T.Road, Miller Ganj, Ludhiana, through its Branch Manager.

…..Opposite party 

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE

CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Quorum:     Sh.R.L.Ahuja, President

                     Sh.Sat Paul Garg, Member

                     Smt.Babita, Member

 

Present:       Sh.Harpreet Singh, Advocate for complainant.  

                   Sh.Rajiv Abhi, Advocate for OP.

 

                   

                        ORDER

 

(R.L.AHUJA, PRESIDENT)

 

 

1.               Present complaint under Section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after in short to be referred as ‘Act’) has been filed by Sh.Ramandeep Singh S/o Sh.Amrit Pal Singh resident of 411-L, Model Town, Ludhiana (herein-after in short to be referred as ‘complainant’) against National Insurance Company Ltd., G.T.Road, Miller Ganj, Ludhiana, through its Branch Manager (herein-after in short to be referred as ‘OP’)- directing them to disburse the claim of Rs.1,29,220/- of the complainant as per the repair bills submitted by him, to pay Rs.1.00 lac as compensation and Rs.25,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.

2.                Brief facts of the complaint are that complainant is the registered owner of Tata-2015 Truck bearing registration no.Pb-10CX-6871, which was insured with OP, vide policy no.401603/31/13/6300001040 issued on 6.8.13 valid from 6.8.13 to 5.8.14 and the sum assured was Rs.10,50,000/-. The vehicle is being used by the complainant for his self employment and for earning his livelihood. On 10.8.13 the said vehicle was taking goods for transportation from Kurali to Mumbai and was driven by complainant’s driver Sh.Mohinder Singh. On 13.08.13 at about 5.30 am, when the vehicle was 3 km from Ladnun to Sujangarh, District Nagpur (Rajasthatn), then one truck bearing registration no.RJ-13GB-0260 coming from the opposite direction suddenly came on the wrong side and struck against the complainant’s truck. The complainant’s driver tried to steer to the left side for safety, but the other truck dashed against it and damaged the complainant’s truck. As a result of this, the complainant’s truck suffered damaged and the same was towed and was got repaired from different workshops. Thereafter, the complainant had submitted all the requisite documents to the OP. The OP’s surveyor Mr.Jogesh Kumar had conducted the survey and held that the claim is payable however he had illegally reduced the claim amount to Rs.55,824/-. Thereafter, complainant received a letter dated 18.6.14 from the OP wherein, they had held the claim to be not maintainable on the ground that at the time of accident, the vehicle was carrying the load of 17682 kg whereas the loading capacity of the vehicle was 16020 kg. The OP had repudiated the claim on the ground of ‘Over Loading’. The repudiation of the claim by the OP is illegal and not tenable, as the vehicle was not over loaded as is clear from the weight slip no.3579 dated 10.8.13 issued by M/s Vishwas Computerized Kanda, Kurali, wherein the vehicle was weighed after loading. Further accident was caused purely by the negligence of the other vehicle, who came to wrong side. Even the surveyor report says that the accident was caused due to the fault of the other vehicle. Claiming the above act as deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complainant has filed this complaint.

3.                On notice of the complaint, OP appeared through his counsel and filed written statement taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is barred u/s 26 of the Consumer Protection Act; the present complaint is not maintainable since immediately on the receipt of the claim, it was duly registered, entertained and processed. Sh.Jatindra Bhatti, Surveyor and Loss Assessor, Nagpur was appointed as spot surveyor, who inspected the spot and submitted his report dated 14.8.13 with OP. Sh. Jogesh Kumar, Surveyor and Loss Assessor, Ludhiana was appointed as surveyor and loss assessor to assess the loss caused to vehicle no.PB-10CX-6871, who personally inspected the vehicle and prepared his interim survey report dated 21.8.13. Sh.Gurbachan Singh Surveyor, Loss Assessor and Investigator, Patiala was appointed as investigator to verify the particular of Permit no.NP/PB/11/092012 dated 11.09.12 in respect of vehicle no.PB-10CX-6871, who prepared his report dated 9.9.13 and submitted the same with the OP. Sh.Jaspreet Singh Malik, Surveyor, Loss Assessor and Valuer, Ludhiana was appointed for verification of the registration certificate of the vehicle bearing registration no.PB-10CX-6871 and driving license of Mohinder Singh bearing driving license no.0094188/Ren, who prepared his report dated 24.09.13 and under his signatures and submitted the same with OP. Sh.Jaspreet Singh Malik was also appointed to verify the genuineness of the bills related to the claim of the vehicle, who after verifying the genuineness of the bills and prepared his report dated 25.2.14 and submitted the same with the OP. After the receipt of the report of Sh.Jogesh Kumar, Surveyor and Loss Assessor, the said surveyor was called upon to submit his report regarding the weighment of the goods carried by the captioned vehicle at the time of the accident. Sh.Jogesh Kumar thereafter submitted the reply dated 11.4.14 to the query of weightment raised by the OP alongwith the letter of the insured dated 10.4.14 and weighment slip no.3759 dated 10.8.13 of M/s Vishwas Computerized Kanda. Sh.Sandeep Kumar Arora, Surveyor and Loss Assessor, Chandigarh was appointed for verification of the bills/invoices a/c Mr.Ramandeep Singh. The said surveyor had personally verified the genuineness of the bills of M/s Vishwas Tubes India Ltd. Mohali and Vishwas Computerized Kanda, Kurali and thereafter prepared his report dated 24.5.14 and 30.5.14 and submitted the same with OP. After the receipt of the report of aforesaid surveyors and after scrutinizing the documents placed in the claim file and after adopting the procedure laid down for settlement of the claim, the claim of the complainant was repudiated as no claim by the OP, vide their letter dated 18.6.14 on the ground that at the time of accident the vehicle was carrying the load of 17682 Kgs, whereas the loading capacity of the vehicle is 16020 kgs. So, on the basis of overloading the claim is not maintainable. There is as such no deficiency in service or negligence on the part of the OP. On merits, admitting the contents mentioned in the preliminary objection and denying all other allegations of the complaint, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

4.                In order to prove his case, Ld. counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Sh.Ramandeep Singh Ex.CA, wherein, the same facts have been reiterated as narrated in the complaint and also placed on record documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C9. On the other hand, Ld. counsel for OP has placed on record affidavit of Sh.R.K.Wadhwan, Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. Branch office no.6, G.T.Road, Miller Ganj, Ludhiana Ex.RA, wherein, the same facts have been reiterated as narrated in the written statement, affidavit of Sh.Jaspreet Singh Malik, Surveyor, Loss Assessor and Valuer, 1315 Urban Estate, Phase-II, Dugri, Ludhiana Ex.RB, affidavit of Sh.Jogesh Kumar, Surveyor and Loss Assessor, 68-A, Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana Ex.RC, affidavit of Sh.Gurbachan Singh, Surveyor, Loss Assessor and Investigator, Office-cum-Residence 463/8, Ghuman Nagar, Sirhind Road, Patiala Ex.RD and affidavit of Sh.Sandeep Kumar Arora, Surveyor and Loss Assessor, 3096, Sector 44-D, Chandigarh Ex.RE and also placed on record documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R13.

5.                We have heard the Ld. counsel for the parties. Ld. counsel for complainant has contended that it is proved on record that the complainant is owner of vehicle Tata-2515 bearing registration no. PB-10CX-6871, which was insured with OP for the period 6.8.13 to 5.8.14. It is further proved fact on record that vehicle of the complainant was met with an accident on 13.8.13 at about 5.30 am, when the vehicle was 3 km from Ladnun to Sujangarh, District Nagaur (Rajasthan), then one truck bearing registration no.RJ-13GB-0260 coming from the opposite direction, suddenly came on the wrong side and struck against the complainant’s truck. Complainant’s driver Mohinder Singh tried to steer to the left side for safety, but the other truck dashed against it and damaged the complainant’s truck. The vehicle was towed to the workshop and complainant spent an amount of Rs.1,29,220/-. However the surveyor of the OP had reduced the claim amount to Rs.55,824/-. But the same was also not paid by the OP on the ground that at the time of accident vehicle was carrying the load of 17682 kg, whereas the loading capacity of the vehicle was 16020 kg. Ld. counsel for complainant has further contended that accident was caused purely by the negligence of the other vehicle, who came to the wrong side. Ld. counsel for complainant has further contended that there is no nexus between the accident an carrying overload weight of the vehicle. Ld. counsel for complainant relied upon the judgements passed in cases titled as B.V.Nagaraju Vs M/s Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.- 1996(3) RCR (Civil) 304 passed by Supreme Court of India, New India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Kotlu Brahamana, Ex.-Servicemens Transport Cooperative Society Ltd.-2012 (1) CPJ (NC) 262 passed by Hon’ble National Commission, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Munni Lal Yadav-2001 (2) CPJ (NC) 53 passed by Hon’ble National Commission, United India Insurance Ltd. Vs Surjit Singh Asai-III (1997) CPJ 79 (NC) passed by Hon’ble National Commission, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mukesh Construction Company-2002 (2) CPJ (NC) 14 passed by Hon’ble National Commission.

6.                 On the other hand, Ld. counsel for OP has filed written arguments, wherein, reiterating the facts of the written statement, at the points of arguments submitted that no evidence has been tendered by the complainant to prove that the truck was carrying the load within the permissible limits i.e. 16020 kgs and was not carrying the load of 17682 kgs. The laden weight as per registration certificate is 8980 kgs and gross vehicle weight is 25000 kgs, whereas as per weighing slip the unladen weight is 8920 and the weight of the consignment carried as per invoice and report of Sandeep Arora Ex.R2 is 17682 Kgs. Thus the total weight carried is 8920 + 17682 which comes to 26602 kgs, whereas the gross weight of vehicle is 25000 kgs, thus excess load is carried in the weight as permissible limit as per registration certificate is 16020 kgs i.e.

Unladen weight as per registration certificate        8980 kg

Gross weight as per registration certificate            25000 kg

Carrying capacity of vehicle thus comes to             16020 kg

(25000 – 8980 = 16020 kgs)

Weight carried at the time of accident                    17682 kg

Against the carrying capacity of vehicle                 16020 kg

 

          As per insurance policy, the gross weight of the vehicle is 25000 kgs. The claim was rightly been repudiated as no claim, vide Ex.R1 and the grounds of repudiation are legal, valid and enforceable and in accordance with the provisions of law, policy. There is no deficiency in service or negligence on the part of the OP in processing the claim and its repudiation. Ld. counsel for OP has also relied upon the judgements passed in cases titled as National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mali Ram Jat- 2009 (IV) CPJ 76 by Rajasthan State Commission, Jaipur, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Sanjeev Kathuria- 2012 (I) CPJ 195 by Haryana State Commission, Panchkula, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Usha Devi-2011 (IV) CPJ 267 (NC) by National Commission, New Delhi, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Raj Paul Kaushal-2009 (IV) CPJ 492 by Himachal Pradesh State Commission, Shimla.

7.                We have considered the rival contentions of Ld. counsel for parties and have gone through the written arguments submitted by OP and the entire record placed on file.

8.                The perusal of the record reveals that it is undisputed facts between the parties that complainant is the owner of the vehicle Tata 2515 bearing registration no.PB-10CX6871, which was insured with OP for Rs.10,50,000/-. It is further undisputed fact that the vehicle of the complainant was met with an accident on 13.8.13 at about 5.30 am, when the vehicle was 3 km from Ladnun to Sujangarh, District Nagaur (Rajasthan), then one truck bearing registration no.RJ-13GB-0260 was coming from the opposite direction, suddenly came on the wrong side and struck against the complainant’s truck. Complainant’s driver Mohinder Singh tried to steer to the left side for safety, but the other truck dashed against it and damaged the complainant’s truck. As per the averments of the complainant he spent Rs.1,29,220/- for the repair of the vehicle. On the other hand, there is specific plea of the OP that at the time of accident, vehicle was carrying over load weight having the load of 17682 kg against the loading capacity of 16020 kg. As such, the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the policy and OP has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant. Though the complainant has relied upon the Weight Slip of Vishwas Computerized Kanda Ex.C9, vide which, net weight shown as 15980, which is less than the load of 16020. However, the complainant has not placed on record any affidavit of the owner/employer of the Vishwas Computerized Kanda in order to prove his plea that the vehicle was carrying under load weight. On the other hand, evidence of OP reveals that they have placed on record a letter dated 30.5.14 Ex.R2 of Sandeep Kumar Arora, Surveyor and Loss Assessor, vide which, he has mentioned that the total weight of the goods mentioned in the invoice comes out to be 17.682 kg. Ld. counsel for OP also placed on record affidavit of Sandeep Kumar Arora, Surveyor and Loss Assessor Ex.RE in order to prove his report. OP also placed on record Excise cum Retail Invoice and other supporting documents, which proves that vehicle of the complainant was carrying the load of 17682 kgs at the time of accident. Though, it is proved fact on record that the vehicle was overload, but it has no nexus with the accident of the vehicle, as it is proved fact that truck bearing registration no.RJ-13GB-0260 was coming from the opposite side and struck against the truck of the complainant, which caused damaged to the truck of the complainant and this fact has also been corroborated from the report of the surveyor, who conducted the survey of the vehicle and assessed the loss of the vehicle in his report Ex.R19. The perusal of the evidence of OP also reveals that claim was lodged with the OP, who appointed surveyor Sh.Jogesh Kumar, who after inspection submitted his report Ex.R19, vide which he had assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.55,824/-. It is presumed that there is violation of terms and conditions of the policy, however, it is settled principle of law that claim of the complainant cannot be repudiated in toto and the same can be settled on non-standard basis.

9.                Sequel to the above, discussion, the present complaint is partly allowed and OP are directed to settle and pay the claim of the complainant on non-standard basis on the basis of the report of the surveyor Sh.Jogesh Kumar within 30 days of receipt of the copy of the order, which be made available to the parties, free of costs, failing which, OP is liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of lodging of the claim, till its realization. Further OP is directed to pay Rs.10,000/-(Ten thousand only) as compensation and Rs.2000/-(Two thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties, free of cost. File be consigned to record room.

 

                   (Babita)                          (S.P.Garg)                      (R.L.Ahuja)

                   Member                           Member                         President

Announced in Open Forum.

Dated:27.03.2015 

Hardeep Singh