Haryana

Jind

CC/29/2014

Ram Phal - Complainant(s)

Versus

NIA - Opp.Party(s)

Sh Vinod Bansal

27 Jul 2016

ORDER

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JIND.
                            Complaint No. 29 of 2014
                            Date of institution:-21.3.2014
                            Date of decision:-12.8.2016
Ram Phal son of Sh. Girdhala resident of village Mehal Khera, Tehsil Narwana, District Jind. 

                                       ...Complainant.
Versus
The New India Assurance Company Ltd. S.C.O. 23-24 IIIrd floor, HUDA, LIC building Jind through its Branch Manager. 
                                          …Opposite party.
Complaint under section 12 of
                Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Before: Sh. Dina Nath Arora, President.    
            Smt. Bimla Sheokand, Member.
            Sh. Mahinder Kumar Khurana, Member.
            
Present:-    Sh. Vinod Bansal Adv. for complainant. 
        Sh. Vinod Bhardwaj, Adv.for opposite party. 
            
Order:-
        In nutshell, the facts of the complaint are that the complainant is registered owner of vehicle bearing registration No.HR-56-9487 and the same was got insured for a sum of Rs.11,55,000/- vide policy No.353402311201100000007 w.e.f. 17.4.2012 to 16.4.2013 against premium of Rs.25,407/-. It is stated that on 5.5.2012 the above said vehicle met with an accident due to 
            Ram Phal Vs. NIAC
                   …2…
sudden arrival of cow in front of the vehicle and vehicle was damaged badly. A DDR No.43A dated 5.5.2012 has been recorded in police station, Sadar Narwana regarding the accident. The complainant informed the opposite party immediately regarding the accident of his vehicle and submitted all the necessary documents. The complainant visited the office of opposite party several times and requested to give the claim amount but the opposite party did not pay any heed on the request of the complainant. The opposite party has wrongly repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 28.3.2013 on the ground that as per investigation report load challan vide invoice No.269 dated 5.5.2012 is fake one. The investigator Arun Singla visited to the shop of M/s Satnarain building material for inquiry and recorded the statement of Mr. Satnarain who specifically admitted that the invoice in question is of his firm but he do not remember whether truck No.HR56-9847 was loaded from his firm or not. The gross vehicle weight of the truck involved in this incident is 25000Kg and unloaded weight is 9000 Kg thus the truck can carry 16000 Kg weight and as per invoice and statement of complainant total 350 feet sandbar was loaded in the truck and weight of 350 feet sandbar as per insurance company is 14000 Kg at the time of accident the weight of sandbar loaded in the truck was less than its loading capacity i.e. 16000 Kg.  Even otherwise the cause of accident in this case is not overloading rather the accident occurred due to sudden arrival of a cow in front of truck. Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party is alleged. It is prayed that the complaint be accepted and opposite party 
            Ram Phal Vs. NIAC
                   …3…
be directed to pay the claim amount of Rs.1,02,020/- along with interest @ 18% p.a., a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental pain and agony as well as to pay a sum of Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. 
2.    Pursuant to notice, the opposite party appeared and filed the written reply agitating that the complainant has got no cause of action and locus-standi to file the present complaint and the complaint is not maintainable in the present forum. On merits, it is contended that the complainant filed an application No.19 of 2013 under Section 22  in Permanent Lok Adalat, Jind and the same was dismissed as withdrawn by way of making the statement. The complainant stated that at that time his vehicle was loaded with sandbar under a load challan vide invoice No.269 dated 5.5.2012 issued by M/s Sat Narain building maerial, Kaithal. Later on this matter was thoroughly investigated by Sh. Arun Singla, a Govt. approved investigator, deputed by the opposite party/insurance company who found that above stated load challan was fake. During the course of investigation Mr. Arun Singla  approached the proprietor of above firm namely Sat Narain and enquired about the sanctity of above stated load challan. Sh. Sat Narain reported that the copy of challan is belonging to his firm but he refused to confirm whether said vehicle was loaded at his shop or not. He did not verify the load challan as true and genuine. Hence, it has become crystal clear before the insurance company that insured has filed the claim on the basis of fake document as well as mis-description and concealment of facts, so the claim of insured has 
            Ram Phal Vs. NIAC
                   …4…
rightly been repudiated vide letter dated 28.3.2013.  Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the  opposite party. Dismissal of complaint with cost  is prayed for.  
3.    In evidence, the complainant has  produced his own affidavit Ex. C-1, repudiation  letter dated 28.3.2013 Ex. C-2, general diary Ex. C-3, investigation report Ex. C-4, copy of cash memo dated 5.5.2012 Ex. C-5, statement of Surender s/o Daya Krishan Ex. C-6, statement of Ram Phal Ex. C-7, copy of application for compromise dated 5.5.2012 Ex. C-8, copy of affidavit of Ram Phal Ex. C-9, copy of information letter Ex. C-10, copy of verification certificate Ex. C-11, copy of  damage claims Ex. C-12, copies of bills and survey report Ex. C-13 to Ex. C-21, copy of letter dated 17.1.2013 Ex. C-22, copy of verification report of driving licence No.51623 Ex. C-23 and Ex. C-24, copy of RC Ex. C-25, copies of bills  Ex.C-26 to Ex. C-31, copy of  statement of manish Kumar Ex. C-32, copies of bills Ex. C-33 to Ex. C-38,  copy of policy schedule Ex. C-39, copy of order dated 21.2.2014 Ex. C-40, copy of statement dated 21.2.2014 Ex. C-41 and affidavit of Satnaryan  Ex. C-42 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the opposite party has produced the affidavit of  Sr. Divisional Manager of NIAC Ex. OP-1, copy of order dated 21.2.2014 Ex. OP-2, copy of  repudiation letter dated 28.3.2013  Ex. OP-3, copy of letter dated 16.3.2013 Ex. OP-4, copy of bill Ex. OP-5, copy of statement of Surender Ex. OP-6,  copy of statement of Ram Phal Ex. OP-7, copy of policy schedule Ex. OP-8, copies of survey report Ex. OP-9 and Ex. OP-10, affidavit of Mohit Chugh, Surveyor and Loss Assessor Ex. OP-
            Ram Phal Vs. NIAC
                   …5…
11 and affidavit of  Arun Singla, Investigator Ex. OP-12 and closed the evidence. 
4.    We have heard Ld. counsel of both the parties and also perused the record placed on file. The counsel for complainant argued that he got insured his truck w.e.f. 17.4.2012 to 16.4.2013 with the opposite party and paid the premium, but the said truck was met with an accident on 5.5.2012 in this regard a DDR No.43A has been recorded on the same day. It is further argued that the complainant immediately informed  the opposite party regarding the accident and completed all the formalities for settlement of the claim. It is further argued that the gross weight of the truck involved in this incident is 25000Kg and unloaded weight is 9000 Kg thus the truck can carry 16000 Kg weight and as per invoice and statement of complainant total 350 feet sandbar was loaded in the truck and weight of 350 feet sandbar as per insurance company is 14000 Kg at the time of accident the weight of sandbar loaded in the truck was less than its loading capacity i.e. 16000 Kg.  Even otherwise the cause of accident in this case is not overloading rather the accident occurred due to sudden arrival of a cow in front of truck.
5.    On the other hand, the Ld. counsel for the opposite party argued that  the load challan issued by M/s Sat Narian building material, Kaithal was found fake during the investigation by the investigator Sh. Arun Singla. Besides this as per  statement of eye witness Sh. Surender Kumar made before the investigator that  the truck was fully 

            Ram Phal Vs. NIAC
                   …6…
loaded and due to overload the truck met with an accident. So the claim of the insured has rightly been repudiated. 
6.    After hearing Ld. counsel of both the parties and also perused the record placed on file. It is not disputed that the truck was insured at the time of accident. It is also not  disputed that the truck in question was met with an accident on 5.5.2012.  Two questions are arise before us. First question is whether the load challan invoice No.269 dated 5.5.2012 is fake one or not?  Second  question is  whether at the time of accident the truck in question  overloaded or not?  As per investigation report Sh. Arun Singla reported that the load challan was fake because the proprietor of the above firm namely Sat Narian has made a statement before him that the copy of challan is belonging to his firm but he refused to confirm whether the said vehicle was loaded at his shop or not and as such he did not verify the load challan as true or genuine.  We have gone through the affidavit Ex. C-42 which was tendered by Sh. Sat Narian s/o Sh. Soran Ram wherein he depose that on 5.5.2012 he had sold 350 feet sand to the owner of the truck bearing No. HR-56-9487 and  the said loaded truck containing 350 feet sand met with an accident in the area of village Dhakal, Tehsil Narwana. He further stated that he has provided the bill to the owner of the vehicle after putting his signature in Hindi. He can signe on the documents in English as well as in Hindi. In view of the above said affidavit the plea taken by the opposite party that the document i.e.  load challan Ex. C-5 is fake is not tenable. The opposite party has failed to tender any counter affidavit/evidence load 
            Ram Phal Vs. NIAC
                   …7…
challan Ex. C-5 is fake. The second question is that whether the truck in question at the time of accident overloaded or not? The opposite party has not filed any document to prove that at the time of accident truck was overloaded and accident took place due to overload. We have also gone through the statement of Sh. Surender Kumar on which the opposite party relied upon that the truck was met with an accident due to overload.  In the statement Sh. Surender Kumar depose that his family members  namely Sheela, Bimla, Pooja and his son Hardev were going to their field and seen that a truck has been coming from Kaithal side and due to imbalance met with an accident in bull cart and due to this accident my family members injured and the truck was fully loaded. The matter was compromise with the owner of the truck. After perusal of the statement of witness Sh. Surender Kumar no where he said that the accident took place before him. When Sh. Surender Kumar is not  eye witness how he can said that the truck was fully loaded or not. Hence, the statement of Surender Kumar is not believable as he is not  eye witness. Besides this the investigator or the opposite party has  not filed any cogent evidence that at the time of accident truck was overloaded. Mere to say that the truck was overloaded at the time of accident is not tenable in the eyes of law. Whereas the complainant prove that he loaded 350 feet of sand from M/s Sat Narian building material, Kaithal and 350 feet sand having  weight of 14000 Kg. However the truck can carry 16000 Kg weight. 
7.    In view of the above said discussion, we are of the firm view that deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties is proved for 
            Ram Phal Vs. NIAC
                   …8…
repudiating the claim on the false and frivolous ground. We allow the complaint and opposite party is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 1,01,020/- assessed by the surveyor within 30 days from the date of receiving the certified copy of order, failing which the opposite party is directed to pay a simple interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 21.3.2014 till its final realization. We assessed Rs.3300/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. Copies of order be supplied to the parties under the rule. File be consigned to the record-room after due compliance.
Announced on: 12.8.2016
                                              President,
       Member       Member                 District Consumer Disputes                                          Redressal Forum, Jind

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                   Ram Phal Vs. NIAC
                  
Present:-    Sh. Vinod Bansal Adv. for complainant. 
        Sh. Vinod Bhardwaj, Adv.for opposite party. 
            

                Arguments heard.  To come up on  12.8.2016 for orders.

                                       President,
            Member            Member                     DCDRF,Jind
                                           9.8.2016

Present:-    Sh. Vinod Bansal Adv. for complainant. 
        Sh. Vinod Bhardwaj, Adv.for opposite party. 
            

        Order announced. Vide our separate order of the even date, the complaint is allowed. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance. 
                                                                                           President,
            Member            Member                     DCDRF,Jind
                                          12.8.2016