PER SHRI. S.S. PATIL – HON’BLE MEMBER
1) This is the complaint regarding repudiating the insurance claim of the Complainant by Opposite Party No.1 on irrelevant grounds.
2) The facts of this complaint as stated by the Complainant are that, the Complainant is all India Road Transport organization. It has taken a Transit-cum- Storage Insurance Policy No.260800/21/05/4400000015 valid from 01/04/05 to 31/03/06 from Opposite Party No.1.
3) The Complainant has further stated that the Complainant had lodged his insurance claim during the policy period as follows. The Complainant has failed to mention specifically as to, with whom it had lodged the insurance claim. The details of the claim given by the Complainant are as follows – Claim No.NI/071/05-06- for Rs.3,52,329/-. On 28/12/05, the Consigner M/s. Caryaire Equipments India Ltd. Noida – had dispatched the consignment consisting of 8 Nos. Fans Coil Unit, and 10 Nos. insulated Flexible Duct and 560 Nos. Air Distribution Units – to KNND Associates Pvt. Ltd. Bangalore through Complainant’s truck No.HR46-B-1192.
4) The Complainant has further stated that the vehicle (truck) No.HR46-B-1192 met with an accident on 04/01/06 at Rajgad, (MP) enroute to Bangalore. In this accident, materials loaded in the said truck was damaged. Opposite Party No.2 was immediately informed who in turn intimated to the Opposite Party No.1.
5) On 13/09/06 the Surveyor submitted his report dtd.11/09/06 to Opposite Party No.2, the Complainant’s broker. On 15/09/06 the Opposite Party No.2 forwarded the said report to Opposite Party No.1. (There is no proof showing that the report had been submitted to Opposite Party No.1.)
On 28/05/07 the Complainant sent a letter enclosing details of the pending claims.
On 25/06/07 Complainant’s Executive Director’s personal visit to Opposite Party No.1 office. This is only averment of the Complainant.
On 26/06/07 Opposite Party No.1 raised the queries regarding the claim but the Complainant has alleged that these queries were not received by it.
On 28/06/07 Complainant wrote a letter to Opposite Party No.1 to pay the insurance.
Feb., 2008 Complainant came to know that Opposite Party No.1 has raised some queries in respect of claim. So on 31/03/08 Complainant sent suitable reply to answer these queries. All necessary documents were forwarded to the Opposite Party No.1.
18/03/08 Letter was sent by the Complainant to Opposite Party No.1 requesting to release the payment of the claim.
04/06/08, 12/06/08, 04/07/08 – reminders sent to Opposite Party No.1 by the Complainant.
10/09/08 - Opposite Party No.1 acknowledged the reminders of the Complainant.
In Nov.-2008, Mr. Namdhari Dn. Manager, asked the Complainant to send relevant documents once again (This is only an averment not supported by any document). It is also stated that these documents were acknowledged on 05/12/08 but the acknowledgment is not on record.
09/02/09 - Opposite Party No.1, sent a letter to the Complainant denying the claim on irrelevant ground – i.e. “Regarding all other claims, as you have not submitted the required details in time to us, the claims were closed as no claim long back”.
15/04/09 – Complainant wrote a letter refuting the contents of the above said letter of Opposite Party No.1.
27/06/09 – Complainant issued legal notice through its Advocate but in vain.
6) Finally the Complainant has claimed the following reliefs-
a) Claim amount of Rs.3,52,329/-.
b) Compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- for losses, inconvenience, and mental harassment.
c) Rs.50,000/- towards the legal expenses incurred by the Complainant.
d) 18 % interest on the above amount from the date of entitlement of the claim.
7) The Complainant has attached the xerox copies of the relevant Transit-cum-Storage Policy, surveyor report and letters exchanged between the parties. The complaint was admitted and notices were duly served on the Opposite Parties. Inspite of service on the Opposite Party No.2, he did not remain present before this Forum. Hence, ex-parte order has been passed against him vide roznama dtd.07/02/2011. The Ld.Advocate for Opposite Party No.1 appeared before this Forum on 07/02/2011 and promised to file written statement of Opposite Party No.1 on next date but subsequently failed to attend this Forum till the argument on 03/08/2011. Therefore, the matter was heard without the written statement of Opposite Party No.1.
8) Meanwhile the Complainant has filed affidavit in evidence and written argument wherein the facts mentioned in the complaint are reiterated. We heard the Ld.Advocate for the Complainant and our findings are as follows.
9) The Complainant has obtained a Transit-cum-Storage Insurance Policy from Opposite Party No.1 for the year 2005-2006 (01/04/05 to 31/03/2006). During the policy period, on 28/12/05, the Consigner M/s. Caryaire Equipments India Ltd, Noida dispatched consignment consisting of 8 Nos. Fan Coil Units, 10 Nos. insulated Flexible ducts. 560 Nos. Air distribution units to Bangalore through the Complainant’s truck No.HE46-B-1192 which met with an serious accident on 04/01/06 at Rajgad, (MP) enroute to Bangalore. The material, loaded in the said truck was damaged in that accident. After more than 9 months of this accident, the surveyor submitted his survey report to Opposite Party No.2 on 13/09/06. In turn the Opposite Party No.2 forwarded the said survey report to Opposite Party No.1. The Complainant has not pleaded in this complaint the valuation of the claim or loss occurred. Only in this title of this claim it is mentioned as “B. With reference to the claim No.NI/071/05-06 containing GC No.7373744 & 7373745 amounting to Rs.3,52,329/-. The Complainant has failed to state how this figure was arrived at. Therefore, we referred the surveyor’s report dtd.11/09/06. According to this report the survey of this accident has been done on 17/01/06 at Godown premises of the Complainant at Bangalore while the accident had taken place in M.P., Rajgad. Out of 560 Nos. Air Distribution units, 166 Nos. were in sound condition, while 394 numbers are broken & crushed – damaged. These damaged consignment had reached Bangalore on 09/01/06. It was specifically mentioned in this report that Truck No. HR46-B-1192 was proceeding to Bangalore in the month of Jan., 2006 – truck met with an accident on 04/01/06 near Rajgad. Damaged material was loaded in same truck and was brought to Bangalore. The surveyor was requested by Opposite Party No.2 to survey & assess the loss and accordingly the survey was conducted at Nelamangala, Bangalore at Godown of Opposite Party No.2 on 17/01/06. The loss assessed for 394 Air distribution unit was Rs.2,72,634/-.
10) The surveyor’s report was received by Opposite Party No.1 on 15/09/06. After more than 8 months. On 28/05/07, the Complainant has written a letter to Opposite Party No.1 submitting the details of pending claim amounting to 6.50 Lacs. However, from the letter dtd.26/06/07 of the Opposite Party No.1 addressed to Complainant it is seen that the Opposite Party No.1, has sought certain clarification from the Complainant. The Complainant has replied to this letter vide its letter dtd.31/03/08 i.e. after 9 months. In this letter the Complainant has clarified the nature of the accident. It has further clarified that FIR has been registered at Biaora Police Station of Rajgad Dist (MP) vide FIR No.1003/05 dtd.31/12/05. Strangely the complainant has not attached the copy of this FIR but attached the order of the Hon’ble Court releasing the vehicle. We perused the attached copy of this order. The truck number mentioned in this order is HR63-B-11192 and No.HR46-B-1192. The RTO Registration Number is different from the truck number concerned in this claim similarly as per the survey report of Mr. Pradeep Narang the date of accident is 31/12/05 and not 04/01/06 as mentioned in the complaint. It is disclosed from this report that an offence had been registered against the driver of truck HR46-B-1192 U/s. 279, 337, 304(A) I.P.C. i.e. for rash and negligent driving of the said vehicle. From this report it is seen that the accident was a serious accident between this Truck No.46-B-1192 and a TP bus No. MP-04-K2306 in which both the vehicles sustained damages and 13 passengers sustained injuries. The cleaner of Truck HR46-B-1192 died on the spot. Truck No.HR46-B-1192 was confiscated by Bioara Police Station. The accident was between Truck No.HR46-B-1192 and TP bus MP-04-K-2306 and offence was registered against the driver of the Truck HR46-B-1192 under Sec.279, 337, 304(A) for rash and negligent act and thereby causing injuries to the persons and causing death of the cleaner of the said truck.
11) In the report dtd.19/03/08 by the surveyor M/s.Rajagopal, the date of accident is given as 13/12/05 at 1.00 p.m.
12) Letters dtd.04/06/08 and 12/06/08 are the reminders of the Complainant addressed to Opposite Party No.1 to release the payment of claims.
13) The Opposite Party No.1 vide its letter dtd.10/09/08 has communicated the Complainant regarding long pending claims that it was taking up the matter with their Mumbai office.
14) Thereafter on 09/02/09 the Opposite Party No.1 communicated the Complainant that “Regarding all other claims you have not submitted the requested details on time to us, the claims were closed as No claim long back.”
15) In view of the above events, it is seen that the accident occurred on 04/01/06 as per the pleading in the complaint. However, surveyor report states that it is on 31/12/05, while the other surveyor’s letter dtd.19/03/08 states the date as 13/12/05.
16) The Court order states the vehicle is different than the vehicle number stated in the complaint and other documents submitted by the Complainant himself.
17) Though the accident occurred in December/January, 2006 the survey was done by the surveyor appointed by Opposite Party No.2, the broker of the Complainant himself. It is not seen in record that the intimation of the said accident was given to Opposite Party No.1 till 28/05/07. In the averment, the Complainant has himself stated that on 28/05/07, the Complainant wrote a letter to the Opposite Party No.1 enclosing details of pending claim amount. We thoroughly scrutinized the papers submitted by the Complainant but could not see any letter or document giving information to the Opposite Party No.1. The policy document has prescribed the procedure for the claims. Under this head it is clearly stipulated in clause (d) that “In the event of loss/damage to the consignment caused by an accident/collusion/fire/riot or strike, and such other perils covered herein during transit, immediate notice shall be given to the insurer for their arranging survey of the consignments covered therein”. In this case in hand it is seen that such immediate notice has not been given to the Opposite Party No.1 till 28/05/07.
18) Clause (f) of this procedure in policy document states “In the event of major loss/damage to consignment covered herein, the insured shall lodge a complaint to the nearest police station and FIR shall be obtained and submitted to the insurer. In this case, FIR has been lodged at the nearest police station as mentioned earlier against the driver of the truck of the Complainant but it is not seen that this FIR has been submitted to the Insurer.
19) The Opposite Party No.1 i.e. the Insurer vide its letter dtd.09/02/09 has informed the Complainant that Complainant has not submitted the required details in time to the insurer and hence, it has closed the claims as no claims.
20) Therefore, in view of the above observation, the Complainant is not diligent in submitting his claim to the Opposite Party No.1. It appears that the intimation was given to the Opposite Party No.2. Opposite Party No.2 arranged surveyor and surveyor submitted his report after 8 months i.e. on 13/09/06 and the 1st communication of the Complainant with Opposite Party No.1 is on 28/05/07 i.e. after more than one year the Complainant has committed the breach of provision stipulated in the insurance policy mentioned at clause of f of the procedure prescribed for the claims. There are discrepancies in the date of accident and the truck number which met with an accident as pointed out earlier. The surveyor has estimated the loss in his report dtd.11/09/06 / 13/09/06 as Rs.2,72,634/-. However in the complaint/the claim amount with regard to Ref NI/071/05-06 is Rs.3,52,329/-. The Complainant has not stated how he has increased this claim amount. Lastly, the Complainant has never alleged in the entire complainant that there is a deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties.
Considering all these points we do not find any merit in this case and as such, we pass the following order -
O R D E R
i)Complaint No.244/2010 is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost.
ii)Copy of this order be furnished to both the parties.
