Haryana

Kurukshetra

192/2017

Angoori Devi - Complainant(s)

Versus

OIC - Opp.Party(s)

Rohtash Jangam

16 Jan 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

                                                     Complaint Case No.192 of 2017.

                                                     Date of institution: 18.09.2017.

                                                     Date of decision:16.01.2019.

Anguri Devi w/o late Sh. Mohinder Singh, R/o V.P.O. Sarsa, Tehsil Pehowa, District Kurukshetra.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Sabharwal Market, Opposite Laxman Dass Petrol Pump, Railway Road, Kurukshetra through its Branch Manager.

….Respondent.

Before:      Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.

                Ms. Neelam, Member.

                Sh. Sunil Mohan Trikha, Member.

Present:     Sh. Harvinder Singh, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                Sh. R.K.Singhal, Advocate for the OP.

               

ORDER

                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Anguri Devi against Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., the opposite party.

2.            Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant got insured her vehicle make/model TATA LPT-2515 bearing No.HR37A-5883 with the Op vide policy No.233503/31/2015/11506 valid w.e.f. 03.02.2015 to 02.02.2016.  It is alleged that on 14.07.2015, the aforesaid truck was damaged while on his way to Hapur (UP).  The said truck was damaged due to collapse of small bridge which was newly constructed.  Intimation with regard to this accident was given to Area Incharge Police Station on the same day and they had registered the DDR to this effect in their record.  Information regarding accident was also given to the Op.  The complainant suffered the loss of Rs.4,00,000/- on account of damage of chassis of the vehicle and other parts.  The complainant lodged the claim with the Op and submitted all the necessary documents but the Op repudiated the claim of complainant vide letter dt. 16.02.2016.  The said repudiation of claim is wrong and illegal.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Op and prayed for acceptance of complaint with the direction to Op to pay the loss of Rs.4,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. and further to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony or any other relief which this Forum may deems fit.   

3.            Upon notice, the OP appeared before this Forum and contested the complaint by filing reply raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint.  It is worth to mention herein that the policy of insurance was issued from Patiala and the vehicle in question had met with an accident in the area of Village Pilakhuwa near Khanori in Punjab.  Thus, no cause of action has arisen at Kurukshetra; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum.  The true facts are that after receiving the information regarding accident, the surveyor was appointed by the Op and on perusal of survey report, it was revealed that the carrying capacity of the vehicle in question is 16,000 Kgs., whereas it was carrying the load of 28065 Kgs., which means that the vehicle was overloaded with 12065 Kgs. and the said overloading was the cause of loss of the vehicle in the accident; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Op.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.             The complainant tendered into evidence affidavit, Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C12 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

5.           On the other hand, the Op tendered into evidence affidavit, Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R8 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

6.             We have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.

7.             After perusal of record, we find that Ex.R3 clearly shows that the permitted weight of vehicle is 25000 Kgs. but Ex.R3 and Ex.R4 show that weight of goods carried in the vehicle is 28065 Kgs. and moreover Ex.R5 also shows which was written by the complainant that the registered laden weight of vehicle is 25000 Kgs., weight of goods carried in the vehicle is 28065 Kgs.  So, from the above-said documents, it is clear that there was overloaded in the vehicle in question.  Hence, from the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that the Op has rightly repudiated the claim of complainant.  The authority submitted by the counsel of complainant titled as Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Raj Kumar Gupta, reported in 1999(2) CPJ page 505 (UP State Commission, Lucknow) is not disputed but the same is not applicable to the facts of instant case. 

9.             Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we find no merit in the present complaint and accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed.  No order as to costs.  A copy of said order be supplied to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.     

Announced in open court:

Dt.:16.01.2019.  

                                                                        (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                        President.

 

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Neelam)       

Member                             Member.