Haryana

StateCommission

A/377/2016

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

NAVEEN CONSTRUCTION - Opp.Party(s)

R.C.GUPTA

16 Nov 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  : 377 of 2016

Date of Institution: 02.05.2016

Date of Decision : 16.11.2016

 

 

1.      The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. through its Sr. Divisional Manager having its office at 313 Model Town, Delhi Road, Rohtak.

2.      The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. through its Branch Manager having its Branch Office  at Gohana, Tehsil Gohana, Distt. Sonepat.

                                     

                                                          Appellants –Opposite Parties

 Versus

 

M/s Naveen Constructions, through it prop. Naveen Balhara, Shop No. 19 HUDA Market, Sector-2 Rohtak.

                                      Respondent –Complainant

 

 

 

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Argued by:          Sh. R.C. Gupta, Advocate for the appellants

Sh. Jitender Malik, Advocate for the respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.-opposite parties (Insurance Company) are in appeal against the order dated 17.12.2015 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak (in short, ‘District Forum’) whereby complaint filed by M/s Naveen Constructions-complainant was allowed and the Insurance Compnay was directed to pay Rs.13,22,250/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint till its actual payment besides Rs.3,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.  

2.      M/s Naveen Constructions-complainant filed complaint with allegations that they owned Truck No. HR-46-C-3704 and it was insured with the Insurance Company-opposite parties with Insured Declared Value (IDV) of Rs.19,23,750/- vide Policy No. 35380331100100001153 for the period from 26.10.2010 to 25.10.2011.  On the night of 25/26.04.2011 the truck met with an accident, for which FIR was lodged. The truck was totally damaged. Intimation was given to the Insurance Company.  Surveyor was appointed and whatever documents asked by the surveyor were supplied to him.  Surveyor assessed the loss at Rs.13,22,250/- after deducting salvage value of Rs.6,00,000/- and compulsory excess of Rs.1500/-.  However, Insurance Company repudiated  the claim vide letter dated 18.01.2013 on the ground that the truck was overloaded.   

3.      On notice Insurance Company appeared and contested the complaint.  The Insurance Company admitted that the truck was insured.  It has been submitted that Sh. S.P. Mangla Chartered Engineer was appointed as surveyor, who reported that the truck was loaded with 500 cu.ft of GSB (crushed stones) transformed to 20000 kgs. of crushed stones.  The gross weight of the vehicle as per Registration Certificate (RC) was 25000 kgs and unladen weight was 10580 kgs.  Thus, the load carrying capacity works out to 14420 kgs.  The truck was overloaded, which was in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.

4.      District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed the complaint and passed orders as detailed in paragraph No. 1 of this order.

5.      We heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the file.

6.      The Registration Certificate of the vehicle is on file as Exhibit C-1.  As per Registration Certificate, the unladen weight of the truck is 10580 kgs and gross weight is 25000 kgs.  After deducting the unladen weight from gross weight, the load carrying capacity works out to 14420 kgs.  Complainant has placed on file receipt dated 25.04.2011 (Exhibit C-5) of Dharam Kanta. The accident also took place on 25.04.2011.  The receipt Exhibit C-5 of weigh bridge mentions the gross weight on that date as 24795 kgs with Tare (unladen) weight as 10580 kgs and net weight (of material) 14215 kgs.  Thus, it was certainly within the permissible limits of load carrying capacity of the vehicle.  The plea raised by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company that the receipt was not genuine, cannot be accepted as no such plea was raised before the District Forum. Besides this, no evidence was led by the Insurance Company to rebut this documentary evidence.  Insurance Company has relied upon the report of surveyor.  The surveyor  has taken the value matrix of load as 500 cu.ft to be equal to 20,000 kgs. without any basis and took only hypothetical basis. From where the surveyor has taken this value matrix calculations and how he has transformed it to kilograms is only hypothetical and without any basis. In view of the documentary evidence placed on record, the load being carried was within the permissible limits. No other plea being raised by the Insurance Company.  The Insurance Company has wrongly repudiated the claim of complainant.  No interference in the impugned order is made out.  The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

7.      The statutory amount of Rs. 25000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.  

 

Announced 16.11.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President