Haryana

Karnal

407/2012

Ram Partap S/o Hari ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shree Ram General Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sudhakar Mittal

01 Jan 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.  

                                                          Complaint No.407 of 2012

                                                          Date of instt.: 28.8.2012

                                                          Date of decision:01.01.2016.

 

Ram Partap son of Shri Hari Ram resident of 28, Old Gurudwara Assandh district Karnal.

.                                                                               ……..Complainant. 

                                      Vs.

1.Shree Ram General Insurance Co.Ltd. E-8,  EPIP, RIICO, Sitapura, Jaipur (Rajasthan) – 302022 through authorized signatory/Manager.

2.Divisional Manager, Shree Ram General Insurance Co.Ltd.SCO No.410, First Floor, Mugal Canal, Karnal..                                                                           ………  Opposite Parties.

 

                     Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer

                     Protection Act.

 

Before           Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.                

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:-       Sh.Sudhakar Mittal Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Rohit Gupta Advocate for the Opposite Parties

ORDER:

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, on the averments that he got his truck bearing registration No. HR-67/2773 insured with the Opposite Party No.1, vide policy No.102018/31/12/013016, for the period of  7.3.2012 to 6.3.2013 by paying premium of Rs.23749/-,  declaring the value as Rs.5,50,000/-, under GGCN-PUBLIC CARRIERS PACKAGE POLICY- Zone –C.  On 16.3.2012 at about 11.00AM, while the truck was being driven to village  Alewa  alongwith labourers  for loading goods from Government  Store, the same  met with an accident in the area of village Mund.  No Daily Diary Report or First Information Report was got recorded with  the police as no causality or bodily injury  had taken place.  He got his truck towed to the workshop and paid Rs.4500/- for that purpose. The truck was got repaired by spending an amount of Rs.1,15,000/-. Immediately, after the accident, the Opposite Party was intimated. A surveyor was deputed by the  Opposite Parties, who inspected the vehicle on 18.3.2012.All the  documents required by the Surveyor were  given for assessment of the loss. However, the Opposite Parties  kept on lingering on  the matter on one pretext or the other and raised demand of illegal gratification of Rs.40,000/-.  Ultimately, he got served a registered legal notice dated  26.06.2012 upon the  Opposite Parties  and  thereafter vide letter dated 27.6.2012, the Opposite Parties repudiated his claim on the ground that the vehicle  was being used for hire and reward purpose at the time of accident, whereas the vehicle was occupied  by labourers for the purpose of loading from  Government store which was  covered under the policy. In this way, there was deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties, which caused, him mental harassment apart from financial loss.

 

2.                 Notice of the complaint was given to the Opposite Parties, who put into appearance and filed written statement controverting the claim of the complainant on various grounds.  Objections have been raised that the complainant has got no loucs standi and cause of action  to file the present complaint; that complicated questions of  law and facts are involved, which cannot be decided by this Forum in summary manner; that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form; that the complainant has no privity  of contract, therefore, he is not a consumer and as such cannot maintain the complaint and that this Forum has got no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present complaint, because the claim of the complainant was processed and repudiated at Jaipur office of the Opposite Parties.

 

                   On merits, the factum of insurance of the truck of the complainant has been admitted. It has been denied that the Opposite Parties raised demand of illegal gratification from the complainant, as alleged. It has been submitted that the claim of the complainant was repudiated, because it was found that insured vehicle was insured as goods carrying commercial vehicle, but was being used for carrying passengers for hire and reward at the time of accident, which amounted to serious violation of the policy condition pertaining to the limitations as to use. The complainant was duly conveyed, the reason for repudiation of the claim, vide letter dated 27.6.2012. The other allegations made in the complaint have been specifically denied.

 

3.                 In evidence of the complainant, his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6 have been tendered.

4.                 On the other hand, in evidence of the Opposite Parties affidavit of Sh.Vikash Goyal, Assistant Manager Legal, Ex.O1 and documents Ex.O2 to Ex.O16 have been tendered.

 

5.                 We have appraised the evidence on record,  the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties.

 

6.                 There is no dispute between the parties regarding the fact that truck of the complainant bearing registration No. HR-67/2773 was insured with the Opposite Parties for the period of 7.3.2012 to 6.3.2013. The said truck had met with an accident on 16.3.2012. The claim of the complainant was repudiated by the Opposite Parties on the ground that truck was insured as a goods carrying commercial vehicle, but two fare paid passengers were travelling at the time of accident.

 

7.                 The learned counsel for the Opposite Parties has laid emphasis on the contention that from the statement of Rohtash Sharma, who was driving  the truck at the time of accident Ex.O5, recorded during investigation two  passengers  were travelling in the truck at the time of accident. Truck was insured as goods carrying vehicle. Carrying two fare paid passengers amounted to violation of the condition of the policy, therefore, the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated.

 

8.                 As per the case of the complainant the  truck the alongwith labourers was being driven to village Alewa  for loading goods  from Government Store and the same met with an accident in the area of village Mund. No Daily Diary Report or First Information Report was got recorded regarding the said accident. The only question which arises for consideration is whether the truck was  carrying two fare paid passengers at the time of accident.

 

9.                 The main plank of the Opposite Parties is the statement of Rohtash Sharma recorded during investigation by the Investigator, the copy of which is Ex.O5. The Opposite Parties have  also produced copies of the statements of Ram Partap and  Rajender Singh son of Tara Singh recorded during investigation of the matter Ex.O4 and Ex.O6 respectively. However, it has not been mentioned in Ex.O4 and Ex.O6  as to who scribed these statements.  On the statement of Rohtash Sharma, name of the scribe has been mentioned as Atul son of Ram Partap. Thus, Atul would have been the  most material witness to prove the said statement  of Rohtash Sharma, but his affidavit has not been filed by the Opposite Parties to prove that  the statement was recorded in his handwriting, the same was read over and explained to Rohtash Sharma and he put his thumb impression on the same in his presence. The Investigator of the Opposite Parties has  also not come forward to file affidavit to prove that the said statement of Rohtash Sharma was recorded in his presence and Rohtash Sharma had put thumb impression on the same after understanding contents and admitting the same to  be correct. Therefore, much importance cannot be attached to the said statement of Rohtash Sharma.  Even if, for the sake of arguments, it is accepted that Rohtash Sharma had made the said statement, then also the same does not cut much ice in favour of the Opposite Parties.  In the  statement , he has stated  that while going to Alewa , two passengers boarded a the truck from Assandh. He did not say that those passengers had paid him  fare. Thus, it is not established that truck was carrying fare paid passengers at the time of accident. Therefore, looking from any angle, the order of the Opposite Parties  repudiating the claim of the complainant on the ground that truck was carrying fare paid passengers at the time of the accident cannot be considered as legal and justified. Consequently, the repudiation of the claim amounted to deficiency in services on the part of the Opposite Parties. The complainant has alleged that an amount of Rs.4500/- was spent for towing away the truck  to workshop and an  amount of Rs.1,15,000/- was spent on the repairs. The Opposite Parties have produced the copy of the report of surveyor as Ex.C14, according to which net liability was assessed as Rs.48802/-. Accordingly, the Opposite Parties are liable to pay the amount of Rs.48802/- to the complainant.

10.               As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the Opposite Parties to pay the sum of Rs.48802/- to the complainant. The complainant shall also be entitled for a sum of Rs.5500/- for the mental agony and harassment caused to him and for the litigation expenses. The Opposite Parties shall make the compliance of this order within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced
dated: 01.01.2016.

                                                                    (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

(Anil Sharma )      

   Member.

 

 

 

 

                    Ram Partap Versus  Shree Ram General Insurance.

 

Present:-       Sh.Sudhakar Mittal Advocate for the complainant.

                    Sh.Rohit Gupta Advocate for the Opposite Parties

 

                   Remaining arguments heard. Vide our separate order of the even date, the present complaint has been accepted. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced
dated: 01.01.2016.

                                                                    (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

(Anil Sharma )      

   Member.