Complainant Sh.Sohan Singh Dutta, Partner of M/s.Dutta Service Station vide the present complaint filed U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter for short The Act) seeking necessary directions to the opposite parties to pay Rs.8,10,000/- IDV value of the tanker alongwith interest @ 12% PA. Opposite parties be further directed to pay Rs.50,000/- for harassment and mental agony and Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses to him, in the interest of justice.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that M/s.Dutta Service Station is a partnership firm and Sohan Singh Dutta is the owner of Petrol Tanker bearing registration No.HP-38-B-3588 and was insured with opposite parties through opposite party no.1 vide policy no.401500/31/12/6300009239 for IDV Rs.8,10,000/- valid from 12.3.2013 to 11.3.2014 and Sh.Sohan Singh Dutta is competent to file the present complaint. For plying this vehicle he employed one driver Mr.Rajeev Kumar @ Vikki son of Sh.Veer Singh and checked his driving license no.7715/Mkg/Prof/10 dated 15.01.2010 for M/c, LMV, MMU, HMV, Hazardous Tanker only which was valid upto 14.1.2016. At the time of employment of Vikki driver, Sh.Sohan Singh Dutta also took test drive and after fully satisfaction regarding his ability and possession of valid driving license he was appointed for the insured vehicle. He has further pleaded that on 14.8.2013 the driver Mr.Rajeev Kumar had taken a load of 11000 KL of Petroleum product from Jalandhar to Shaheed Padam Singh Filling Station, Jaunta and unloaded the petroleum product at above mentioned filling station against receipt invoice copy from the owner of the Petrol Pump and the driver parked the tanker near the pump and slept in the cabin. Suddenly the Tanker caught fire and tanker burnt completely. The driver Rajeev Kumar trapped inside the cabin of the tanker and got serious burn injuries and died during the treatment. FIR was got registered vide No.241/2013 dated 14.08.2013 u/s 285/427/34 IPC in PS Nurpur. Intimation about the loss has been given to the opposite party no.1. Tanker in the fire totally reduced to ashes alongwith all the motor vehicle documents including driving license of the driver alongwith documents. Motor vehicle documents were supplied to opposite party no.1 later on. Complainant failed to get copy of driving license of driver as such during inspection of house of the driver, a copy of one driving license was found which was valid upto year 2012 which was handed to the opposite party no.1 Opposite party no.1 deputed Sh.Kailash Chandra, Surveyor and Loss Assessor to assess the loss who submitted his report on 15.12.2013. The opposite party no.1 got verification of above mentioned driving license which is found genuine. Opposite party repudiated his claim vide letter dated 26.6.2015. He approached the office of opposite party no.1 time and again but the opposite party was adamant with his mal business practice and by this act of the opposite party no.1 he suffered harassment and mental agony at the hands of the opposite party no.1 which amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint.
3. Upon notice, the opposite parties insurer appeared through their counsel and filed their written version taking the preliminary objections that the complaint is false and totally misleading. The complainant is trying get the claim by concealing the facts from the Hon’ble Forum. In fact the accident had not occurred as alleged by the complainant in the complaint. The accident had occurred when the driver of the oil tanker were thieving the petroleum product from the tanker. The driver was not sleeping in the cabin of the tanker as alleged. He alongwith two other persons was taking out the product from the tanker when the tanker caught fire. An FIR No.241 dated 14.08.2013 under sections 285, 427 and 34 IPC was registered against the driver and the complaint is not maintainable as the complainant has filed this complaint against the terms and conditions because the driver of the tanker involved in accident not possessing an effective driving license to drive the said oil tanker. This being a breach of the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance, the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation. The driving license 47138 dated 16.10.2009 was valid upto 21.03.2011 and further renewed upto 15.10.2012, whereas the accident had occurred on 14.08.2013. Complainant produced another driving license on 21.01.2015, issued from Nagaland dated 15.01.2010 with endorsement valid upto 14.01.2016. This license was produced exactly six months after the claim file was closed. Otherwise also as per motor vehicle act no person can hold more than one driving license at a time and under Central Motor Vehicle Rules 1989 every driver who drives the vehicle for transporting hazardous goods must undergo mandatory annual training. The driver of the vehicle involved in the accident had not undergone such training. Hence he was not eligible to drive the tanker carrying petroleum products. Therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay any claim to the complainant. On merits, it was submitted that the accident had taken place at a place called “Tattal where the driver had taken the vehicle for thieving the petroleum products. The story given by the complainant regarding the accident is absolutely wrong. All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
4. Sh.Sohan Singh Dutta, complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C-I along with the other documents exhibited as Ex.C2 to Ex C8 and Mark A and closed the evidence.
5. On the other hand, Sh.Subash Chander, Addl. Branch Manager of opposite party tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OP1, alongwith the other documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP23 and closed the evidence.
6. We have duly heard the learned counsels for both the sides in the back-drop of the statutory merit of the evidence/documents as duly produced by the contesting litigants in order to judiciously adjudicate the present complaint under the applicable C P Act’ 1986.
7. We find that the complainant Dutta Service Station through its partner Sohan Singh has been admittedly a consumer of the OP insurers. The insurance policy of the Truck Oil Tanker is also admitted along with the alleged ‘loss/ damage’ incurred in the fire incident. The complainant alleges that ‘fire’ suddenly broke out engulfing the Oil Tanker Truck when the driver was asleep inside there, after unloading the oil etc. However, the OP insurers insistently allege that ‘fire’ engulfed the Truck Tanker when the driver (along with some other persons) was engaged in unauthorized pilfering/stealing ‘fuel’ from the stationary vehicle. As such, the related insurance claim stood repudiated by the OP insurers and the same stands challenged through the present complaint.
8. The complainant has failed to produce any cogent evidence that supports his alleged story of ‘fire’ engulfing the Truck Tanker while the Driver was ‘asleep’ inside the Truck-Cabin. Somehow, the FIR Ex.C5 bearing # 241 of 14.08.2013 negates the complainant’s version and states that the Truck Tanker caught ‘fire’ when ‘fuel’ was being ‘stolen’ from its fuel tank to a plastic container.
9. On the other hand, the OP insurers have produced documents exhibited as: Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP23 including the Investigator’s Report Ex.OP23 and the FIR # 241 Ex.OP5 that satisfactorily prove that ‘fire’ engulfed the Truck Tanker at the time when its ‘fuel/ oil’ was under pilferage/ stolen i.e., at the time, an illegal activity was in progress and thus the terms of insurance were violated and the related insurance claim was rightly repudiated by the OP insurers.
10. In the light of the all above, we do not find any statutory merit in the present complaint and find that the OP insurers have rightly repudiated the insurance claim since the policy terms were violated by the insured and thus we ORDER for dismissal of the present complaint with however no order as to its costs.
(Naveen Puri)
President
Announced: (Jagdeep Kaur)
April 22, 2016 Member
*MK*
