Haryana

StateCommission

A/591/2018

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SANJAY AGGARWAL - Opp.Party(s)

D.C.KUMAR

24 Feb 2020

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA   

 

                                                 

 

                                                First Appeal No. 591 of 2018

                                                Date of the Institution: 08.05.2018

                                                Date of Decision: 24.02.2020

 

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, LIC Building, Jagadhari Road, Ambala Cantt, through Shri P.N. Bodh, Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Regional Office, LIC Building, 2^nd Floor, Jagadhari Road, Ambala Cantt.

 

…..Appellant-Opposite Party

 

VERSUS

 

Shri Sanjay Aggarwal (Proprietor) M/s Aggarwal Carriers, C/o M/s Chawla Filling Station, Ambala –Jagadhari Road, Yamuna Nagar.

…..Respondent-Complainant

 

 

 

CORAM:    Shri Harnam Singh Thakur, Judicial Member.

                   Ms. Manjula, Member.

 

 

                  

                                     

Argued by: Sh. D.C. Kumar, counsel for the appellant.  

                   Shri Sidharth Nahar, counsel for the respondent.

 

                  

                                                O R D E R

 

MANJULA, MEMBER

 

        The instant appeal has been filed by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited-opposite party for challenging the order dated 28.02.2018 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ambala whereby complaint filed by Sanjay Aggarwal-complainant was allowed.  For facilitation, operative part of the order is reproduced as under:-

          “6.     Keeping in view the above discussion the present complaint deserves acceptance.  Accordingly, present complaint is allowed with cost which is assessed at Rs.10,000/-.  Since the surveyor had assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.9,13,264/- as mentioned in Annexure R-10, therefore, the opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.9,13,264/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint till realization of the amount….”

2.      The complainant in his complaint alleged that he got his tanker bearing registration No.HR-58-7837, insured with the Insurance Company from 30.01.2013 to 29.11.2014.  The complainant was carrying out the business of catering the product of IOCL from one destination to various destinations as provided under the contract between them. On 27.06.2014, the tanker was loaded with HSD oil (Diesel) vide bill No.31844971 dated 26.06.2014 for Rs.9,13,264/- from IOC Ambala Terminal to cater the same for IOC Kullu Depot.  On 28.06.2014, the tanker met with an accident and fell into 400 feet gorge. The tanker caught fire.  The complainant informed the Insurance Company.  The Insurance Company appointed the surveyor, who submitted his report. On 22.09.2015, the Insurance Company demanded various documents from the complainant.  The complainant vide his reply dated 05.11.2015 intimated the Insurance Company that the requisite documents were in the tanker, which caught fire.  On 23.03.2015, the Insurance Company passed the loss claim of the tanker by paying a sum of Rs.4,63,500/- and repudiated the product loss to the complainant despite the fact he had also obtained carrier goods liability policy.  The IOCL had already recovered the said product loss of Rs.10,31,940/- from pending transportation bills of the complainant but the Insurance Company repudiated the claim on the ground that the license of the driver was not endorsed with the remarks that he was able to drive vehicle carrying hazardous goods.  Hence, the complaint.

3.      The Insurance Company in its reply pleaded that the complainant obtained two insurance policies.  Out of which, one was own damage policy and other was carriage legal liability policy.  The claim was processed qua own damage and repudiated other claim qua carriage legal liability.  The driver of the damaged vehicle was not negligent nor there was any criminal act on his behalf.  DDR No.8 dated 26.06.2014 clearly shows that the accident had arisen out due to the sudden fault and due to leakage of the pressure pipe of the vehicle.  So, the claim was not payable as per the terms and conditions of the carriers liability policy.  There was no endorsement on the driving license that the driver of the vehicle was authorized to drive the vehicle carrying goods of dangerous or hazardous nature nor the vehicle was having the permit.  The driver had arranged a certificate for attending training for driving hazardous goods vehicle from 23.06.2014 to 25.06.2014 Noida recognized by U.P. Government whereas the accident had occurred on 27.06.2014 at Sawarghat, H.P.  The complainant was asked to provide log book maintained by him during the training period but it was not provided to the Insurance Company rather it was informed that the same had been got destroyed due to catching of fire.  The training certificate arranged by the driver was in proximity of the accident and was fake and not valid.

4.      Learned counsel for the parties have been heard and record perused.

5.      While assailing the impugned order, learned counsel for the Insurance Company has urged that the driver of the Tanker was not holding valid and effective driving licence authorizing him to drive vehicle carrying hazardous goods.

6.      The contention of learned counsel for the Insurance Company is not tenable.  The complainant obtained two insurance policies from the Insurance Company for the period from 28.12.2013 to 27.12.2014 qua the tanker in question and carriage legal liability policy having validity from 30.11.2013 to 29.11.2014.  The accident took place during the subsistence of the insurance policy.   The surveyor assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.9,13,264/- regarding loss of product but the Insurance Company paid Rs.4,63,500/- on 23.05.2015 without any objection regarding validity of driving licence.  The driver had attended three days refresher course for driving hazardous goods vehicle from a recognized centre by UP government vide Annexure C-6 under Certificate No.3888, which was valid upto 24.06.2015 having validity throughout India. Thus, on the date of accident, the driver was fully authorized to drive a transport vehicle carrying goods of dangerous or hazardous nature. Although learned counsel for the Insurance Company had raised question regarding authenticity of certificate (Annexure C-6), placed on record by the complainant but, there is no evidence present on the record that it was fake or procured one.  Thus, the ground of repudiation of the claim taken by the Insurance Company is unjustified. 

7.      In view of above, no case is made out to interfere with the impugned order passed by the District Forum.  Consequently, the appeal is dismissed being without merits.

8.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be released to the respondent-complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, on the expiry of time for appeal or revision, if any.

 

 

Announced 24.02.2020

(Manjula) Member

(Harnam Singh Thakur) Judicial Member