Haryana

Ambala

CC/59/2013

RAM SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

ROYAL SUNDRAM ALLIANCE INSS. - Opp.Party(s)

D.S.PUNIA

08 Aug 2017

ORDER

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

 

                                                        Complaint No. 59 of 2013

                                                        Date of instt:  18.03.2013.

                                                        Date of decision: 08.08.2017.

 

                                        

Ram Singh son of Nasib Singh, resident of village Bichpari Post Office Kakar Majra, Tehsil Nariangarh District Ambala.

 

                                        ...Complainant.

Versus

 

1. Royal Sundram Alliance Insurance Company Limited Corporate   Claims Department, Sundram Towers, 45 & 46 Whites Road, Chennai-600014, through Manager Corporate Motor Claims.
2. Satish Kumar son of Bal Kishan, resident of village Bhurewala Tehsil Naraingarh District Ambala c/o Swami Trading Corporation Kala-Amb Road, Naraingarh District Ambala Agent/agency of Royal Sundram Alliance Insurance Company Limited.

                                                                        …Opposite parties.

Complaint under section 12 of

 

BEFORE:  SH. DINA NATH ARORA, PRESIDENT.  

              SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER

                   MS. ANAMIKA GUPTA, MEMBER                 

 

Present: -  Sh. D.S.Punia, Adv. for complainant.

                Sh. Mohinder Bindal, Adv. for OP No.1.

                OP No.2 exparte.

 

ORDER:

 

                In nutshell, the facts of the complaint are that complainant had purchased a tractor make Farmtrac 60, bearing Engine No.E-2213386, Chesis No.T-2210150 (registration No.HR04D-5464 and got the tractor-trolley insured with Op No.1 through Op No.2 by paying a sum of Rs.10403/-as premium thereof. The insurance company had issued cover note No.3279663 dated 02.06.2011 having validity from 02.06.2011 to 01.06.2011. At the time of insurance, OP No.2 assured that the insurance will cover all the damages/risks to the tractor-trolley, P.A, driver and two labourers. Thereafter, the complainant appointed Sh.Rajneesh Kumar as driver. On 22.11.2011, the above said driver was going to village Rampur then all of a sudden a stray cow appeared on the road and in order to avoid any mishap the tractor fell into deep ditches and got badly damaged, however, the driver was narrow escaped. On the instruction of Op No.2 the complainant took the vehicle to SD Trading Corporation, Naraingarh and ultimately surveyor of insurance company inspected the vehicle and thereafter the rough estimate bill for repair work was prepared. The complainant had submitted all the requisite documents with the OPs but his claim was repudiated by the OPs vide letter dated 16.03.2012 received by the complainant on 18.03.2012. The complainant requested the Ops to honour the claim but to no avail. The act and conduct of the OPs clearly amounts to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on their part. In evidence, the complainant has tendered affidavits Annexure CY and Annexure CX and documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C7.

2.             Upon notice, OP No.1 appeared through counsel and tendered reply to the complaint wherein it has been submitted that damaged sustained by the vehicle did not tally with the cause of accident narrated by the complainant, therefore, his claim was rejected. The present complaint has been filed by concealing the material facts from this Forum just to unlawful gain, therefore, as per policy conditions the claim was found inadmissible the repudiation vide dated 16.03.2013 (actual date 16.03.2012) has been done in accordance with the policy conditions. Other allegations made in the complaint have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. In evidence, the OP No.1 has tendered affidavits Annexure RX and Annexure RY besides documents Annexure R1 to Annexure R5.

3.                     Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that driver Sh.Rajneesh Kumar was driving the tractor in left side of the road at a moderate speed and when he had reached in the area of village Rampur then all of a sudden one stray cow (Jangli Roz) appeared and in order to avoid any mishap he applied breaks but lost control over the same, therefore, the tractor fell into the deep ditches upto 8/0 feet after overturning 3/4 times and due to this the engine of the same got damaged but the OPs have repudiated his claim wrongly and illegally on the ground that the damages to the vehicle are not relevant to the cause of accident narrated in the claim form.

4.                     On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs has argued that damage to the engine of the vehicle only is not possible due to the accident because the version narrated by the complainant was not relevant to the cause of action and in support of his contentions he drew the attention towards report of surveyor Annexure R3. It has been further argued that claim of the complainant has rightly been repudiated.

5.                     After going through the material available on the case file, it is clear that the damage to the vehicle has occurred during the subsistence of the policy. The OPs have mainly stressed on the ground that the cause of action narrated by the complainant does not tally with the damage to the engine only but this plea is not supported by any reliable/corroborative evidence because the surveyor in his report has never mentioned that prior to the accident dated 22.11.2011 the engine of the vehicle in damaged condition despite the fact that the complainant had purchased the vehicle on 02.06.2011.  Moreover, the surveyor has not explained as to how he had come to the conclusion that the cause accident do not relate to the damage of the engine/vehicle only. There is also nothing on the file to show that how the surveyor had judged the impact and degree of the accident to reach at the conclusion made in his report dated 29.12.2012 despite the fact that the complainant has specifically mentioned that the damage to the engine of the vehicle had occurred after overturning the same 3/4 times and it is strange that surveyor had not even touched this specific ground.  The OPs have repudiated the claim of the complainant by relying upon the report of surveyor but it is a settled principle of law that the surveyor report is not a final word and on this point reliance can be taken from case laws titled as National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Giriraj Proteins IV (2012) CPJ 151 (NC),  Mahinder Bansal vs. UHBVNL IV (2012) CPJ 154 (NC),  Noor Ali Vs. National Insurance Company Limited (2009) 17 SCC 565,  Nifty Chemicals Private Limited Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2009),17 SCC 566.  

6.                          Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances of the case we are of the considered view that the OP No.1 has wrongly and illegally repudiated the claim of the complainant and the impugned repudiation letter dated 16.03.2012 (Annexure C-7) is hereby quashed. The present complaint is allowed against OP No.1 only with cost which is assessed as Rs.5,000/- The OP No.1 is further directed to comply with the  following direction within thirty days of the receipt of copy of the order:-

1. To pay a sum of Rs. 1,01,880/- (as assessed by the surveyor in his report Annexure R3) to the complainant alongwith with simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till actual realization.

 

                   Copies of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

 

Announced on: 08.08.2017                                  (D.N. ARORA)

                                                                                 PRESIDENT

 

                                               

 

                                                               (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                                 MEMBER

 

 

                                               

                                                                   (ANAMIKA GUPTA)

                                                                             MEMBER