BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JIND.
Complaint Case No. : 287 of 2019
Date of Institution : 04.11.2019
Date of Decision : 28.10.2022
Raj Kumar son of Amar Singh R/o Ward No.6, Nursar Colony, Safidon, Tehsil Safidon District Jind.
.….Complainant
Versus
Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, registered office at Reliance Centre, 19, Walchand Hirachand Marg Ballard Estate Mumbai-400001.
2nd Address: 4th Floor, Chintamani Avenue, Off Western Express Highway, Near Virwani Industrial Estate, Goregaon (East), Mumbai-400063.
Branch Office at: SCO No.147-148, 2nd Floor, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh-160009 (U.T).
……Opposite Party
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
CORAM: SH. A.K. SARDANA, PRESIDENT.
SMT. NEERU AGARWAL, MEMBER.
SH. G.D. GOYAL, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Sudhir Naik, Adv. counsel for complainant.
Sh. P.K. Batra, Adv. counsel for Opposite Party.
ORDER:
Shorn off unnecessary details, complainant purchased a new Indo Farm 3055 DI Tractor having Engine No.IF4088002531NW & Chasis No.CNW3055001871 from M/s Kishan Engg. Works, Assandh Road Madlauda, District Panipat vide invoice no.003 dated 02.06.2018 for a sum of Rs.8,50,000/- which was insured by OP insurance Company vide policy no.110421823430000789 effective w.e.f. 04.06.2018 to 03.06.2019 for an IDV of Rs.8,07,500/- and the aforesaid tractor was allotted regn. no.HR33G-2391 by Registration Authority, Safidon District Jind. Complainant used the tractor for earning his livelihood being no other source of income. On 07.05.2019, complainant was carrying out agricultural work in fields at village Sarna Kheri (Todi Kheri), Safidon, District Jind, where the tractor suddenly caught fire and started burning. Complainant immediately informed Fire Brigade which came on the spot and extinguished the fire but meanwhile the tractor had burnt completely. Complainant lodged claim with OP insurance company whereupon survey was conducted but claim filed by complainant was repudiated vide letter dated 27.06.2019. So, a legal notice dated 18.09.2019 was served upon the OP but of no avail. Complainant has submitted that due to said act & conduct of OP, he has suffered huge financial loss besides mental pain and agony and non-payment of claim amount by OP clearly amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OP. Hence, the present complaint has been preferred by complainant seeking direction to OP to pay an insured amount of Rs.8,07,500/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. and Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation as prayed in prayer para of the complaint.
2. Notice of complaint was issued to the Op who appeared through counsel and tendered reply raising preliminary objections qua non-maintainability of complaint and no territorial jurisdiction. On merits, OP has submitted that the tractor was used to ply on hire basis and thus there was business activities by complainant. Hence, the complaint is not maintainable being the complainant is not a consumer. OP has further submitted that complainant himself has violated the terms and conditions of the policy as during investigation, it was observed that the vehicle was fitted with additional LED lights and the alleged loss has occurred due to short circuit of these assessories which is an electrical failure. Further the proximate cause of loss is electric failure which is not covered under the policy as per provisions of section 1(2) of the policy, according to which OP is not liable to make any payment to the complainant. Therefore, the claim of complainant has been rightly repudiated vide letter dated 27.06.2019. Besides it, OP has submitted that the surveyor who investigated the claim has assessed net loss to the tractor in question @ Rs.3,37,539/- vide his report dated 26.06.2019 but the same was not payable as per terms and conditions of the policy. In the end, OP has prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. To prove the contention of complainant, learned counsel for complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW1/A alongwith documents as Annexures C-1 to Annexures C-13 and closed his evidence whereas on the other side, learned counsel for OP tendered into evidence affidavit of one Sh. Suryadeep Singh Thakur authorized signatory of OP company as Annexure OPW1/A and of Sh. Amarjeet Singh Parmar, Surveyor as Annexure OPW1/B alongwith one document as Annexure OP-1 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP-insurance company.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and evaluated the documents/evidence placed on file on behalf of both the parties.
5. At the very outset, the grievance of the complainant is that his genuine claim has been repudiated by the OP insurance company vide repudiation letter 27.06.2019 on the ground that at the time of loss, the tractor was fitted with additional LED lights and the said loss has occurred due to short circuit of these accessories which is an electrical failure and is not covered under Section 1(2) of the Motor Insurance Policy which was even produced by OP insurance company at the direction of commission issued vide order dated 03.10.2022.
Learned counsel for complainant has contended that there was no alleged additional accessories fitted in the tractor which may cause harm to it rather the tractor had caught fire on its own while working in the fields. To disprove the factum of additional accessory, counsel for complainant has urged that OP has not placed on record any document whereby ‘loss caused to the tractor by additional accessory’ can be determined. Thus the counsel has vehemently argued that OP has illegally repudiated the claim of complainant pertaining to the tractor having IDV of Rs.8,07,500/- and prayed for acceptance of the complaint.
On the contrary, learned counsel for OP has argued that section 1(2) of the policy says: The company shall not be liable to make any payment in respect of (a) consequential loss, depreciation, wear and tear, mechanical or electrical breakdown, failures or breakages nor for damage caused by overloading or strain of the insured vehicle nor for loss of or damage to accessories by burglary, housebreaking or theft unless such insured vehicle is stolen at the same time. Accordingly, the claim of complainant has been rightly repudiated by OP insurance company.
6. Onus to prove that vehicle in question caught fire due to electric short circuit by extra fitment of LED lights on it; is on the OP insurance company but to prove this fact, OP insurance company has not placed on record any cogent and convincing evidence except to rely upon the surveyor’s report (Annexure OP-1) wherein it has been mentioned that ‘As per our physical observation there was some fency LED light fitted on the vehicle as extra fitment, probably causing short circuit of wiring, causing fire and the same are not insured under current policy, which is violation of the policy terms and conditions’ meaning thereby that surveyor who investigated the claim of the tractor in question is not sure about the cause of fire either by short circuit of alleged LED lights or by any other reason. Besides it, the aforesaid surveyor of the OP-insurance company has nowhere stated in the affidavit (Annexure OPW1/B) tendered by counsel for OP on the court file that ‘cause of fire in the tractor in question is due to short circuit owing to fitment of additional LED lights’ as alleged by OP-company in the repudiation letter dated 27.06.2019. Further this report provides liability of the OP insurance company at a sum of Rs.3,37,539/- subject to terms and conditions of the policy. Furthermore, perusal of copy of Fire Brigade report (Annexure C-5) and copy of DDR (Annexure C-6) nowhere reveals that the short circuit in the tractor in question was due to fitment of any additional LED lights. So, in the absence of any cogent evidence and merely by placing reliance on probable observation of the surveyor, Op cannot be said to be right in repudiating the claim of complainant.
7. In view of the facts discussed above, we are of considered view that the observation putforth by the surveyor qua probable cause of fire in the tractor in question is based upon surmises & conjectures and claim of complainant has been illegally & arbitrarily repudiated by OP insurance company and ends of justice will met, if a sum of Rs.3,37,539/- is awarded to complainant as a net loss assessed by surveyor so appointed by insurance company to assess the loss of insured tractor because the complainant has failed to place on record any cogent and convincing evidence with regard to total damage to the tractor in question and therefore, the claim of complainant to the IDV of Rs.8,07,500/- is declined. Accordingly, we are inclined to partly allow the present complaint and direct the OP-insurance company to comply with the following directions within thirty days from the date of communication of this order:-
- To pay a sum of Rs.3,37,539/- (Rs. Three lacs thirty seven thousand five hundred thirty nine only) to complainant alongwith simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of complaint to till date.
- To pay a sum of Rs.11000/- (Rs. eleven thousand only) as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment to complainant for wrongly repudiating the claim of insured vehicle.
- To pay Rs. 11000/- (Rs. eleven thousand) as litigation expenses including counsel’s fee.
Further the directions issued above must be complied with by the OP within the stipulated period failing which all the awarded amounts at (i) to (iii) above shall further attract simple interest @ 12% per annum for the period of default. Copies of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced on: (A.K. SARDANA) PRESIDENT
(Neeru Agarwal)
Member
(G.D. Goyal) Member
Complaint Case No. : 287 of 2019
Present: Sh. Sudhir Naik, Adv. counsel for complainant.
Sh. P.K. Batra, Adv. counsel for OP.
Arguments concluded. Vide our separate order of even date, the present complaint is partly allowed. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.
Dated: Member Member President
DCDRC/Jind.
