(Delivered on 12/12/2019)
PER SHRI. D. R. SHIRSAO, HON’BLE PRESIDING MEMBER.
1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the learned District Consumer Forum, Chandrapur in consumer complaint No. CC/12/163 on 12/11/2014 directing opponent to pay insurance claim of Rs. 2,06,424/- to complaiinant along with compensation, the opponents have preferred this appeal.
2. Brief facts of the case are as under. :-
Respondent /complainant had filed consumer complaint against opponents for getting insurance claim in respect of his tractor along with cost and compensation. Complainant submitted that he had taken policy in respect of his tractor from opponents for the period from 17/08/2011 to 16/08/2012. However, opponents had only given insurance cover note to the complainant and had not given the entire policy documents to him. During subsistence of insurance policy on 29/05/2012 at about 7.30 p.m. when the tractor of complainant was standing by the side of road one S.T. Bus bearing registration No. MH-14/BT-0810 was driven by the driver of S.T. Bus under influence of liquor and had given dash to the tractor of complainant. In that accident the tractor of the complainant was broken in to two pieces. Complainant had given intimation about the same to police and also to opponents. Opponents had appointed their surveyor to assess the loss sustained by complainant. It is the contention of complainant that he had given that vehicle to Navin Automobiles for repairs and he had paid an amount of Rs. 2.06,424/- for repairs of that tractor. He had claimed that amount from opponents. However, opponents had repudiated his claim on the ground that necessary documents are not produced by the complainant. Hence, it is the contention of complainant that opponents have given deficiency in service to the complainant and complainant is entitled to get amount of Rs. 2,06,424/- from the opponents along with interest on that amount along with cost and compensation. As opponents have not given insurance claim, the complainant has filed this consumer complaint.
3. Opponents contested the complaint by filing their written version on record and submitted that there was breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Complainant had also not produced requisite documents to process his claim. Hence, complainant is not entitled to get insurance claim in respect of his vehicle. Hence, they submitted that consumer complaint be dismissed.
4. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, evidence adduced by them on record and documents filed by them on record, the learned District Consumer Forum had come to the conclusion that by not giving insurance claim to complainant in respect of his tractor, opponents have given deficiency in service to the complainant. Hence, learned District Consumer Forum directed opponents to pay insurance claim of Rs. 2,06,424/- to complainant along with compensation. Being aggrieved by the same the opponents have preferred this appeal.
5. Heard, learned advocate appearing for appellant /opponents. He submitted that there was breach of terms and conditions of insurance policy issued by the opponents in respect of tractor of complainant. He further submitted that at the relevant time tractor was not owned by the complainant and he had no insurable interest in the tractor. The driver of the tractor had no requisite driving license to drive tractor along with trolley. Moreover, he was driving tractor by carrying two passengers in it. Hence, there was breach of terms and conditions of insurance policy. Hence, complainant is not entitled to get insurance claim in respect of that tractor. Complainant was directed to produce receipts of payment to process his claim. However, he had not produced requisite documents and hence insurance claim of complainant could not be processed. However, the learned District Consumer Forum has not considered this fact and directed the opponents to pay insurance claim to complainant in respect of tractor. Hence, he submitted that order passed by the learned District Consumer Forum be set aside by allowing this appeal.
6. The learned advocate appearing for the respondent /complainant submitted that there is no document on record to show that the tractor is registered in the name of other person than complainant. In respect of owner of the tractor the statement given by the driver of tractor cannot be taken into consideration. He further submitted that as per R.T.O. documents tractor is recorded in the name of complainant and hence, complainant has insurable interest in respect of that tractor. He further submitted that accident of that tractor had not taken placed due to negligence of driver of tractor. Hence, it is not required to be considered that the tractor of driver was not having valid driving license to drive tractor along with trolly. He further submitted that hence, whether -tractor was driven by carrying passengers in it is of no relevance . He further submitted that documents in respect of repairs of tractor were already given to opponents. However, they insisted for receipts in respect of payment of bills. Complainant had not paid the bill and he had given his consent to insurance company to pay bills of repairs directly to the service center. However, opponents had not considered the same and had not processed the claim of the complainant. Hence, complainant required to file this complaint against the opponents. The learned District Consumer Forum had considered all these facts properly and directed opponents to pay insurance claim in respect of tractor to complainant along with compensation. Hence, he submitted that appeal is to be dismissed and order passed by the learned District Consumer Forum be confirmed.
7. On perusal of record it is become clear that tractor bearing No. MH-34/L-7589 is owned by the complainant along with trolley bearing No. MH-34/L-2428. The said tractor and trolley is recorded in the name of complainant in RTO record. Complainant had taken insurance policy in respect of this vehicle from opponents for the period from 17/08/2011 to 16/08/2012. During subsistence of insurance policy on 29/05/2011 one S.T. Bus was dashed to the tractor and in that incident tractor was broken to two pieces. It appears that complainant had given report to that accident and it also informed about the same to the opponents. Opponents appointed their surveyor for assessing the loss of the vehicle. Complainant had brought his vehicle for repairs to Navin Automobiles , Chandrapur. As per invoice given by them complainant had made expenditure of Rs. 2,06,424/- for repairs of that vehicle. Complainant had made claim in respect of this amount to opponents. As opponents had not given insurance claim to complainant on the ground that he has not provided necessary documents in respect of the same. Complainant has filed this consumer complaint against the opponents.
8. In this case the learned advocate appearing for the appellants /opponents has submitted that complainant has no insurable interest in the vehicle as vehicle is owned by Mr. Pradip Thengari of Bodegaon. He submitted that the driver of tractor by name Mr. Sudhakar Mahadeo Kambali had stated this fact while giving report of accident in police station. At that time he was also admitted that he was carrying coolies in that tractor. Hence, he submitted that there was breach of insurance policy. He further relied on driving license of driver by which he was permitted to drive LMV only. He submitted that as driver of the vehicle was not having driving license to drive tractor along with trolley, there is breach of insurance policy. However, the contention of learned advocate appearing for the appellants/opponents in this respect cannot be accepted. The vehicle is recorded in the name of the complainant. Only as per the statement of driver of tractor it cannot be accepted that complainant had sold his vehicle to other person and he lost his insurable interest in the vehicle. On the date of filing of claim vehicle was recorded in the name of complainant and hence, complainant had insurable interest in the vehicle. In this case it is admitted fact that S.T. Bus had given dash to stationery tractor of complainant. Hence, accident had taken place due to negligence of S.T. driver and hence, in respect of that accident offence was registered against the driver of S.T. Bus. Hence, accident had not taken place due to negligence of tractor driver. In view of the same, we are of the opinion that it cannot be considered that driver of tractor was not having valid driving license to drive tractor along with trolley and at the time of accident he was carrying two passengers in the tractor. Moreover, opponents have not repudiated the claim of complainant on this ground. It is the contention of opponents that complainant had not provided requisite documents to process his claim. They were claiming receipts in respect of expenditure made by the complainant for repairs of the vehicle. As complainant had not produced the same they had not considered the claim of the complainant. However, in this respect the learned advocate appearing for the respondent has relied on following rulings
i. II (2012) CPJ 349 (NC), Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Brahmdeo Panjiyara. In this case the Hon’ble National Commission considered that the claim cannot be repudiated for non supply of necessary documents.
ii. III (2006) CPJ 306, Jaigiri Goswami Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. In this case the Hon’ble National Commission considered that affidavit sworn on oath before notary is to be considered against the statement made by that person before Police.
iii. IV (2011) CPJ 243 (NC), New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M.S. Venkatesh Babu. In this case the Hon’ble National Commission considered that statement recorded by police can be used for limited purposes for proving contradiction and omission.
9. In this case it is admitted fact that as per the direction given by the surveyor of opponents complainant had deposited his vehicle with Navin Automobiles, Chandrapur. They had issued invoice in respect of repairs of vehicle. The complainant had produced the same before the insurance company for payment of the same directly to Navin Automobiles, Chandrapur. However, opponents had not paid amount mentioned in the invoices to Navin Automobile by allowing the claim of complainant. Hence, complainant was required to pay an amount of Rs. 2,06,424/- to Navin Automobile for repairs of his vehicle. Hence, we are of opinion that the complainant is entitled to get this amount from opponents which he had expended for repairs of his tractor along with compensation. The learned District Consumer Forum had rightly considered this fact and directed opponents to give this amount to complainant along with compensation. Hence, we are of the opinion that the order passed by the learned District Consumer Forum is legal and correct and hence, the same is to be confirmed by dismissing this appeal. Hence, we proceed to pass the following order.
ORDER
i. The appeal is hereby dismissed.
ii. The order passed by the learned District Consumer Forum, Chandrapur in consumer complaint No. 163/2012 on 12/11/2014 is hereby confirmed.
iii. Parties to bear their own cost.
iv. Copy of order be furnished to both parties, free of cost.
