Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.

                                                                   Complaint No. : 154

                                                                   Instituted on     : 28.03.2019

                                                                   Decided on       : 02.07.2024

Ram Niwas, s/o Sh. Mai Dhan resident of Village Katesra Teh. Kalanaur District Rohtak. 

                                                                   ……….………….Complainant.

                                      Vs.

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Through its Manager, SCO-400-401-402, HDFC Bank Building, Near D- Park, Model Town, Delhi Road, Rohtak.

                                                          ...........……Respondent/opposite party.

          COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT 1986.

BEFORE:  SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.

                   DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.

                   DR. VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER

Present:       Ms. Renu Hooda, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Sameer Gambhir, Advocate for the opposite parties.

                                      ORDER

NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:

1.                Brief facts of the case as per the complainant are that  he is owner of Tractor No. HR-12AE-5150 and the same was insured with the respondent for a period from 10.11.2017 to 09.11.2018 vide policy No. 200421723430003992 against an insured amount of Rs.5,70,000/-. The said tractor met with an accident on 18.5.2018 when the complainant was going from village Sangahera to Sonepat while driving the said vehicle and when he reached near Village Bhalaut Rohtak-Sonepat Road, in the meantime the wild cows came running from the road side trees to cross the road and to avoid the said wild cows, the complainant applied emergency brakes and at that very time a truck which was in the process of crossing the tractor on its side, the driver of the truck also applied emergency brakes and struck against a Nala near a house beside the road and was damaged badly. The complainant and truck driver both sustained injuries on their persons and were taken to General Hospital, Rohtak. The said accident was caused in process to rescue the wild cows. The matter was reported to the Police Station Sadar, Rohtak on 20.5.2018 vide General Diary No.002. The complainant was having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. The complainant duly informed the respondent regarding the occurrence of accident and damages of the tractor. The respondent appointed a surveyor who duly inspected the vehicle in question and the complainant was asked to repair the vehicle at M/s Balhara Auto Company, Bhiwani Road, Rohtak and accordingly the complainant got repaired his vehicle from M/s Balhara Auto Company and  incurred an expenditure of Rs. 90,000/- on account of repairing charges, carrying charges and loss due non-plying of the tractor. The complainant requested the opposite parties to pay the claim amount but the respondent avoided the matter on one pretext or the other and has not paid the claim amount to the complainant. The act and conduct of the respondent is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to pay the amount of Rs.90000/- alongwith interest, compensation of Rs.20000/- on account of mental agony and harassment to the complainant and also to pay litigation expenses to the complainant.

 2.               After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party. Opposite party filed its written statement submitting therein that  the Trolley was attached with Tractor which was specially designed( long hook with Trolley) for transporting the goods. Pockets with thick clothes to carry extra goods/material and at the relevant time of alleged accident tractor attached with trolley is overloaded and was plying on the road in contravention of section 113 of Motor vehicle Act. Further extra fittings were done as material changes in front of the tractor which had no concern with the agriculture usages. Insurance policy of respondent insurance company is availed by the complainant for agriculture tractor and the indemnification and cover of agriculture Tractor, so the usage of tractor commercially is not permissible. Complainant has not availed commercial package insurance policy and the coverage of using commercial is not cover in the present policy of miscellaneous type. Hence the claim of the complainant is not payable. Otherwise also, the respondent insurance company submits that complainant has not provided the repair bills, estimate, salvage details and complainant has not provided the repair and parts documents and details so the surveyor assessment could not carried out. The surveyor assessment is necessary to assess the damage as per the deprecation of parts, age of vehicle and allowed and disallowed parts as per the policy terms. It is mandatory to deduct the amount of Excess clause, depreciation, depreciation of Parts. Plastic Rubber etc. The respondent Insurance company submits that extra work or extra repair or extra new parts are not related to the damage of vehicle is not payable. Mere production of bills or estimate cannot be the basis of claim. The claim amount as assessed by the statutory surveyor under section 64UM of the insurance act is valid and tenable and therefore the claim for additional sum is untenable and unsustainable. Therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed on account of violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and dismissal of complaint has been sought. 

3.                Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.PW1/A, documents Ex.PW1 to Ex.PW9 and thereafter failed to conclude his evidence and the evidence of complainant was closed by the order dated 06.12.2022 of this Commission. On the other hand, Ld. counsel for the opposite party has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R9 and closed his evidence on dated 07.04.2023.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material aspects of the case very carefully.

5.                 In the present case claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the respondent insurance company vide its letter Ex.R1 dated 05.07.2017(date is wrongly mentioned) on the ground that the complainant was using the  vehicle for commercial purpose for carrying goods. It has been further mentioned in this letter that the specially designed trolley was also attached with the tractor in a condition of overloaded  fodder  in it.  We have minutely perused the documents placed on record by both the parties. The insurance company has placed on record investigation report as Ex.R2. But the same is not supported with affidavit. Further more the insurance company failed to place on record any photograph or any other document to prove the fact that the specially designed trolley containing overloaded fodder was attached with the tractor at the time of accident. As per our opinion a farmer can use a trolley for the purpose of agriculture and without any trolley or any instruments  the function of a tractor cannot be performed. It is further submitted by the respondent that the complainant was using the vehicle for commercial purpose at the time of accident. But the respondent failed to place on record any authentic evidence to prove the fact that complainant was carrying the alleged fodder for commercial purpose. No such evidence has been placed on record to prove the above mentioned fact. In the present complaint the complainant has pleaded that he suffered a loss in the vehicle in question and to prove this fact he placed on record the bills Ex.P4 to Ex.P9. In fact Ex.P4 to Ex.P8 is a consolidated bill amounting to Rs.63462/- and  Ex.C9 is of Rs.3037/-. On the other hand the insurance company placed on record an assessment as Ex.R5. The perusal of this assessment summary Ex.R5 & Ex.R6 shows that there is a liability of the insurance company only for an amount of Rs.9483/-. The insurance company failed to place on record any surveyor report to prove the fact that complainant has suffered merely a loss of Rs.9483/-.  Moreover unauthorised assessment sheet has been placed on record. This assessment sheet has not been issued by any legally authorised surveyor. The respondent insurance company has not mentioned the estimated cost of the repair in this assessment sheet/assessment summary. It has been admitted in this assessment summary that the vehicle of the complainant was repaired in Balhara Auto Company and date of loss is also mentioned as 18.05.2018. As per the complainant he got  repaired his vehicle in Balhara Auto Company and a bill for the cost of repair has been issued by Balhara Auto Company on 23.07.2018.  After considering the make of vehicle, depreciation, depreciation of parts, excess clause, plastic and rubber parts, we came to the conclusion that 20% amount of loss is deductible under these heads as per terms and conditions of the policy. We have also observed that  model of vehicle was 2017 and the date of accident was 20.05.2018.  Hence as per our opinion the complainant is entitled for the repair cost of both the bills Ex.PW8 & Ex.PW9 after deduction of 20% amount on account of consumable parts i.e.to pay Rs.51570/-(Rs.63462/- + Rs.3037/-= Rs.64462/- less 20%).

6.                In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party to pay Rs.51570/-(Rupees fifty one thousand five hundred and seventy only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 28.03.2019 till its realisation and also to pay a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.

7.                Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

02.07.2024.

                                                          ........................................................

                                                          Nagender Singh Kadian, President

                                                          ..........................................

                                                          Tripti Pannu, Member.

                                                          ……………………………….

                                                          Vijender Singh, Member