BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 158 of 2020.
Date of Institution : 16.07.2020.
Date of Decision : 13.08.2024.
Manjinder Singh, aged about 42 years son of Shri Falel Singh, resident of G.T. Road, Near Trust Park-16, Mandi Dabwali, Tehsil Dabwali, District Sirsa, Haryana.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Shri Raj Kumar Agent, United India Insurance Company Limited, Sirsa.
2. United India Insurance Company Limited, Sirsa, through its Branch Manager.
3. Chandel Automobiles, Sirsa Road, Dabwali, District Sirsa, through its Incharge/ Manager.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Before: SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR ………………PRESIDENT
MRS.SUKHDEEP KAUR……………………….MEMBER.
SH. OM PARKASH TUTEJA…………………MEMBER
Present: Sh. Manoj Narula, Advocate for complainant.
Opposite party no.1 already given up.
Sh. Deepak Bajaj, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
Sh. V.P. Arora, Advocate for opposite party no.3.
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (after amendment u/s 35 of C.P. Act, 2019) against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to OPs).
2. In brief, the case of complainant is that complainant is owner in possession of one Sonalika Tractor No. HR-25E/0532 alongwith trolley which was got insured with op no.2 for the insured declared value of Rs.3,60,000/- vide insurance policy No. 1119013119P106526875 for the period 24.08.2019 to 23.08.2020. That on 05.02.2020 the complainant loaded iron sheets in the above said tractor trolley from the factory M/s Goyal Agrotech Golden Jawahar nagar, Dabwali and at about 9.00 p.m., he was going to M/s New Kalsi Agriculture Works Malout Road, Dabwali for his personal work and his driver namely Gurpreet Singh was driving the above said tractor at a moderate speed and on his left side of the road but when he was coming outside from the above said factory, then suddenly one car came in front of the above said tractor. That in order to save the said Car, the tractor was struck into the pillar and accident was caused as a result of which tractor suffered serious loss and Handi rear differential of the above said tractor was broken. It is further averred that on 06.02.2020 complainant informed the insurance company about said accident and submitted his claim for the loss of tractor. The tractor was surveyed by the company and company obtained his signatures on some papers alongwith documents and even some blank cheque duly signed by complainant was also received by ops. The tractor was brought to Chandel Automobiles, Dabwali for its repair whch prepared job card no. 787 dated 06.02.2020 and after checking it was found that differential HSG was cracked as oil leakage to differential HSG was present. That complainant purchased equipments for repair of tractor for total amount of Rs.74,710/- from various shops vide receipts and submitted all the bills to the company alongwith claim but vide letter dated 14.02.2020 the insurance company has repudiated the claim of complainant with the reason that this claim is not admissible, hence not maintainable. It was also reported that it was found that loss of differential HSG is not due to accident and that is just wear and tear, so this claim is not maintainable. It is further averred that repudiation letter of op no.2 is wrong and incorrect and against law and facts but op no.2 refused to admit the claim of complainant after postponing the matter on one pretext or the other and have caused deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and unnecessary harassment to the complainant. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, ops no.2 and 3 appeared. Op no.2 filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that insurance of vehicle as well as liability of ops to indemnify the insured was subject to terms and conditions and scope of the insurance policy. On receipt of information about accident, the answering op appointed its Surveyor and Loss Assessor to inspect and make assessment of the losses suffered by the insured vehicle who submitted his report to the ops and assessed zero loss to the vehicle because loss is just wear and tear. It is further submitted that claim was scrutinized by answering op and it was observed that alleged incidence was not reported by complainant to the police, the insured tractor was meant for agriculture purposes, whereas same was being operated for loading and unloading of iron sheets and the driver of the insured tractor was not holding a valid and effective driving licence, which is gross violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy. Moreover, the complainant was written letters for providing papers/ documents, but he failed to provide the same, therefore, his claim was repudiated by answering op vide letter dated 26.02.2020 in a legal and lawful manner on the grounds that inspite of letters/ reminders sent to him, he has not complied with required papers/ documents and no claim, wear and tear loss as well as driver has not license to drive this vehicle. It is further submitted that repudiation letter is perfectly legal and valid and complainant is not entitled to any amount as claimed by him. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
4. Op no.3 also filed written statement raising certain preliminary objections. On merits, the contents of complaint are denied to be wrong and for want of knowledge and prayer for dismissal of complaint qua op no.3 made.
5. Op no.1 was given up by learned counsel for complainant being unnecessary.
6. The complainant in evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex. CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C14.
7. Op no.2 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Surender Kumar Saini, Deputy Manager as Ex. RW2/A and documents Ex. RW2/1 to Ex. RW2/7.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
9. The insurance of the tractor with trailer is not disputed. However, the claim of the complainant for reimbursement of Rs.74,710/- allegedly spent by complainant on repair of the tractor due to accident has been repudiated by op no.2 on the ground that loss of differential HSG is not due to accident and this is just wear and tear, so this claim is not admissible and op no.2 also took the ground that driver Gurpreet Singh who was driving the tractor at the time of alleged accident was not having a valid and effective driving licence to drive the tractor with trolley. The op no.2 has also placed on file motor survey report submitted by Surveyor as Ex.RW2/3 who has given his remarks that he inspected the vehicle minutely and carefully and found that loss of differential HSG is not due to accident. This is just wear and tear, so this claim is not admissible, hence not maintainable and that driver has not valid license to drive the tractor. There is nothing on file to prove the fact that report of Surveyor is not correct and it cannot be said that said loss is not due to wear and tear and only due to accident. Further more, copy of driving licence of driver Gurpreet Singh placed on file by complainant as Ex.C10 reveals that he was authorized to drive only Scooter and car only and not tractor with trolley, so the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the policy in question because it is condition in the policy that person driving the insured vehicle in question should be holding an effective driving licence at the time of accident. As such complainant has failed to prove his case and has violated the terms and conditions of the policy and is not entitled to any claim from the insurance company.
10. In view of our above discussion, we do not find any merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed but with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced. Member Member President
Dt. 13.08.2024. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
