JUDGEMENT

(30.06.2023)

1. This complaint petition is filed under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 alleging deficiency in service rendered by the opposite parties thereby causing mental agony to the complainant.
2. The case of the complainant is that complainant is the registered owner of vehicle TATA Tipper, registration no. AR 06A 0546. The said vehicle was insured with the opposite party No.1 bearing policy No.00000000008258176-02 and the period of insurance was effective from 03.02.2020 to 02.02.2021.
3. On 09.12.2020 the said insured vehicle got into accident and suffer damaged at Pania village, Lower Subansiri District, Arunachal Pradesh. Intimation regarding the accident of the said vehicle was informed to the officer in-charge of concern police and further inspection of the accident vehicle was also done by the MVI, Ziro Lower Subansiri and accordingly submitted its inspection report on 15.02.2020.
4. That Complainant made claim before the opposite parties for the payment of his insured amount of Rs 12,21,997.60/- but opposite parties failed to make any payment as claimed by the complainant neither inform of such delay. Therefore on 30.03.2021 a legal notice was served to the Branch Manager of SBI General Insurance Company, Ulubari Guwahati, Assam but to the utter surprise of complainant, complainant received its  notice reply from the opposite party on 28.04.2021 where complainant’s claim was rejected on the ground of overloaded beyond the permissible load capacity of the said vehicle with 500 CFT that is 22681.79 kg and for carrying passenger more than seating capacity which is a violation of the terms and condition of the policy.
5. The complainant’s claim in respect of his insured amount with the opposite party bearing Policy No.000000008258176-02 was repudiated by the opposite party despite having a valid period for claiming the complainant insured amount and as such the act of opposite parties caused deficiency in service and mental agony to the complainant. Hence, this complaint.
6. The complainant’s prayer to direct the opposite parties as follows: -
   1. For cost of accident vehicle…Rs 12,21,997.60/-
   2. For causing mental agony… Rs 1,00,000/-
   3. For deficiency in service…    Rs 2,00,000/-
   4. For Litigation Charge …………Rs 50,000/-
   5. Loan Interest for 6 months@ 5%.....Rs 2,10,000/-

In Total……………………………………..Rs 17,81,997/-

7. Upon the notice, the Opposite parties no.1, 2appeared and contested the present consumer complaint by filing their respective written statement.
8. That the opposite parties denied each and every allegation alleged by complainant in its complaint.
9. The Opposite party No.1 contended in their reply by taking some preliminary objection that no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice caused and as such complaint be dismissed for want of cause of action.

10. The opposite party No.1 in their reply stated that opposite party issued commercial Motors goods Carrying Policy No.0000000008258176-02 to complainant Shri Taj Taram effective from 03.02.2020 to 02.02.2021 which is subject to certain term and condition and exclusion mentioned in the Policy Wording.

11.That the opposite party in their reply admitted to the fact that complainant claim was intimated to the opposite party on 10.12.2020 for vehicle damage due to the accident happened on 09.12.2020.Then opposite party appointed IRDAI Licensed Surveyor PARASHMONI BHUYAN for conducting survey of the said insured vehicle. The appointed surveyor conducted the survey and submitted its report on 10.02.2021 and assessed the loss amounting to Rs.9, 50,000/-(Rupees Nine Lakhs Fifty Thousand only)

12. That the opposite party in their reply contented that vide letter dated 08.04.2021 the opposite party repudiated the claim of the complainant as insured vehicle was damaged due to overloading and over seating of passenger which is a violation of condition No.2 (a) Under section I- Loss of or damage to the vehicle insured, general exception No.3 and the limitation to use clause as per within the precincts of the policy terms and conditions. And further content in their reply that opposite party had been very responsive to the complaint’s of complainant and every communication has been timely communicated to the complainant and as such the opposite parties deny each and every allegation as alleged by the complainant as to deficiency in service rendered by opposite party and as such complaint be dismissed.

13.  Both the counsels filed their written argument and we have heard their submission for the parties and have gone through the case records.

14. The complainant is the registered owner of a vehicle Tata Tipper, bearing registration No. AR-06A-0546 and the said vehicle were insured with the opposite party with policy No.0000000008258176-02 and the period of insurance effective from 03.02.2020 to 02.02.2021. On 09.12.2020the said vehicle got into accident to which complainant made claim for the payment of his insured amount of Rs 12,221997.60/-before the opposite party but opposite party repudiated complainant’s claim despite having a valid period for claiming its Insured declared amount and as such opposite party cause deficiency in service.

15.   Whereas on the other side opposite party contended that complainant claim was repudiated due to overloading and over seating of passenger which is a violation of condition No.2 (a) Under section I- Loss of or damage to the vehicle insured, general exception No.3 and the limitation to use clause as per within the precincts of the policy terms and conditions and MV rules.

16.  Now we are to see whether the opposite party vide letter dated 08.04.2021 rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant for the payment of his insured amount of Rs 12,22,997.60?

17.  In regard to this we have seen the complaint petition,Annexure-9 which is a copy of insurance policy document dated 05.02.2020 wherein depicting that complainant chose the Commercial Motors Goods Carrying policy from the opposite parties and in respect of which opposite party issued the insurance policy certificate to the complainant bearing a policy no.0000000008258176-02, period of insurance valid from 03.02.2020 to 02.02.2021.In the said insurance policy certificate details of insured motors vehicle given reflecting the name of the insured vehicle namely:Tata Motors, LPK 1618-/3610 CUM. Box, insured vehicle registration no. given as AR-06A-0546, Carrying Capacity  of the said vehicle -02 and given the total insured declared value amounting to Rs 12,21997.60/-and also seen the final report of surveyor dated 22.04.2021 in  page 56 of opposite party’s reply reflecting in details, the name of surveyor as Parash Moni Bhuyan, with its reference no. EC/ 17787/10Dec20/10Dec20115903/100000, Claim no.MVO504932,date of claim 10.12.2020, Insurer name SBI General Insurance, policy no.0000000008258176-02, its validity period from 03.02.2020 to 02.02.2021, insured amount is Rs 12,21997.60/-,insured name as Taj Garam and in one of the column reflecting the details of accident and vehicle  where seating capacity and passenger carrying capacity reported as 03.Whereas as per the Annexure 9 document of complainant’s petition insured vehicle namely, Tata Motors, LPK 1618-/3610 CUM. Box, bearing registration no. as AR-06A-0546, and Carrying Capacity  of the said vehicle is given as 02.

17.  Therefore, basing on final report of the surveyor dated 22.04.2021 and the insurance policy document of the complainant we conclude that opposite party rightly declined the claim of the complainant and as such no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice rendered upon the complainant by the opposite parties.

19.Hence, this consumer case no. CDRC/PP-07/2022 stands dismissed and disposed on contest.

10. Judgment pronounced and signed on this 30t^h day of June 2023 at Yupia.

(Miss Deepa Yoka)                                       (Mr. Tarh Loma)

Member                                                       Member

(Mr. Gote Mega)

     Pres