IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
SONITPUR AT TEZPUR
District: Sonitpur
Present: Smti A. Devee
President,
District Consumer D.R Forum,
Sonitpur, Tezpur
Sri P.Das
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sonitpur
Smti S.Bora
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum,Sonitpur
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.11/2018
Sri Pankaj Baruah : Complainant
S/o Sri B.C Baruah
R./o :Vill: Namonigaon
P.S & P.O :Rangapara
Dist: Sonitpur, Assam-784505
Vs.
1.Shriram General Ins.Co.Ltd. : Opp. party
E-8,EPIP,RIICO Industrial Area
Sitapura, Jaipur-302022
2.Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd.
Parmeshwari Building, 3rd Floor, N.T Road
Tezpur- 784001
Appearance:
Mr.Abhijit Kar, Advocate. : For the Complainant
Mr.Sudesh Kr.Singh, Advocate. : For the Opp. party No.1
Mr Paramjeet Singh Sethi,Advocate : For the Opp. party No.2
Date of argument : 12-10-2018, 30-11-18 & 7-12-18
Date of Judgment : 02-01-2019
J U D G M E N T
- The facts leading to the complaint, in brief, are that the truck bearing registration No.AS-01-BC-5426 belonging to the complainant met with an accident on 29/04/2016 at village: Jamiri under Rupa Police Station, district: West Kameng in the State of Arunachal Pradesh and suffered total loss as the same could not be retrieved from the deep gorge of about 100 metres. The incident was immediately reported to the opposite party No.1 as the insurer of the vehicle and the opposite party No.2 as the financier of the vehicle. Complainant filed ejahar with the Rupa Police Station where the Rupa P.S case No.13/2016 was drawn. Complainant complied with all official formalities and handed over all original documents to the Surveyor appointed by Insurance company for settlement of his claim but the insurance company vide its letter dated 19-05-2016 repudiated the genuine claim of the Complainant on the ground of additional occupants in the truck against seat capacity of three persons. Alleging that opposite party insurance company illogically, unethically and on artificial grounds has repudiated his genuine claim, Complainant is thus, before the Forum, praying relief of a total amount of Rs.7,35,000/-, inclusive of the IDV of the vehicle, for deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
- Opposite party No.1 failed to submit written version. However, vide orders dtd. 26-07-2018 liberty was given to the opposite party No.1 to take part in hearing. Opposite party No.2 contested the case by filing written version. Contending thereunder that it had no role to play in the case and had unnecessarily been dragged into without any rhyme and reason, has therefore, prayed for dismissal of the case against it with exemplary cost for filing a vexatious case.
- Complainant tendered his evidence-in-chief on affidavit exhibiting few documents thereunder. None of the opposite party adduced evidence of any witness. The Complainant was however cross-examined by opposite party No.1.
We have carefully gone through the materials available on record including the written arguments filed by the Complainant and the opposite party No.1.
POINTS FOR DETERMINATION:
- Whether there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party/Insurance Company ?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get compensation as prayed for ?
DISCUSSION ON THE POINTS WITH DECISION
4. On a very careful scrutiny of the documents more particularly Ext-8, we have found the following undisputed facts –
- That, the vehicle in question of the Complainant was insured with the opposite party Insurance Company vide Policy No.10003/31/10/654954
- That the said vehicle met with an accident on 29-04-2016.
- That the matter of accident was duly informed to the opposite party Insurance Company through Call Centre on 29-04-2016 itself.
- That Claim No.10000/31/17/C/006080 was registered.
5. Ext-8 is a letter dated 19-05-2016 issued to the Complainant by the Insurance Company. Vide Ext-8, Complainant was asked to submit the following documents within 7 days of receipt of Ext-8.
i)Original copy of FIR/Charge sheet
ii)Seizure list,
iii)Driving License in original for verification,
iv)Duly filled and signed Claim form,
v)Duly filled and signed Claim discharge voucher
vi) Original Policy and Policy Confirmation
6. Complainant is silent as to compliance of Ext-8. But approached this Forum on the ground that the Insurance Company repudiated the genuine claim vide letter dated 19-05-2016 on illogical, unethical, artificial ground that 4 persons were travelling in the Truck against permitted sitting capacity of 3 person including driver
7. Regarding the claim of over passenger, learned advocate for the Complainant has placed the following judgment of the Supreme Court of India and submitted that “Though assumed but not admitted even if the policy was violated then also the Complainant is entitled to 75% of the IDV as per Hon’ble Supreme Court”.
Judgments of the Supreme Court relied on by the Complainant are –
- Amalendu Sahoo Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. in Civil Appeal No.2703 of 2010 arising out of SLP(C) No.1227/2009 (Decided on 25th March,2010)
- National Insurance Com. Ltd Vs. Nitin Khandelwal, reported in 2008(7) SCALE 351.
8. Mr S.K.Singh, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party Insurance Company forwarding his argument, strongly pressed the contents of Ext-A”. Ext-“A” was written by the Complainant on the following day of accident. In Ext-“A”, Complainant himself stated that at the material time of accident there were four persons including the driver, travelling in the insured vehicle. According to Mr. Singh, the Complainant cannot take advantage of his own misconduct of violation of policy condition.
9. In the case of Amalendu Sahoo, the Hon’ble Apex Court placed reliance on the decision rendered by it earlier in Nitin Khandelwal’s case. Observation made by the Supreme Court reads as follows:-
“In the case of Nitin Khandelwal (supra) the State Commission allowed 75% of the claim of the claimant on non-standard basis. The said order was upheld by the National Commission and this Court refused to interfere with the decision of the National Commission”.
10. In view of mandate of the Apex Court, the Insurance Company ought to have considered the claim of the Complainant to the extent of 75% of the IDV instead of repudiating the entire claim.
11. No dispute has been raised either in Ext-8 or in cross-examination of the Complainant about total loss of the vehicle.
12. The Complainant claimed that at the time of accident the vehicle was driven by one Mr Ali Khan. Mr Ali Khan died in the accident. On being directed by this Forum, the Complainant has produced photocopy of driving license of Mr Khan with a petition (No.288/18 dtd 07-12-2018) stating that the original driving license was with the driver. Learned counsel for the Complainant has cited following decisions of the Apex Court and submitted that even if the license was fake, the insurance company would continue to remain liable unless they prove that the owner was aware or noticed that the license was fake and still permitted him to drive.
Decisions are-
1)Civil Appeal No.20962 of 2017 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.29032 of 2015) Pappu & Ors Vs. Vinod Kumar Lamba & Anr.
2)Civil Appeal No.,8276 of 2009 Pepsu Road Transport Corpn. Vs. National Insurance Company.
3Civil Appeal No.8145 of 2018 arising out of SLP(C) No.6760/2017 Ram Chandra Singh Vs. Rajaram & Ors.
13. Ext-5 (FIR) was lodged by one Sri Phingo Khabisaw, President, Motor Transport, East Kameng /West Kameng and Tawang district. As per Ext-5, the driver Ali Khan and 3 other persons on the vehicle died in the accident.
14. In the instant case the opposite party Insurance Company directed the Complainant vide Ext-8 to produce certain documents including the driving license of the driver.
15. In view of decisions of the Supreme Court relied on by the learned counsel for the Complainant, coupled with the reasons assigned by the Complainant for his failure to produce original driving license of the driver, we are of the opinion that non-production of the driving license has no impact on disposal of the matter in dispute. However, the documents relied on by the Complainant discussed hereinbefore proved that at the time of accident there were four persons in the vehicle against the seating capacity of two. On the other hand, Ext-8 shows that Complainant had not submitted duly filled and signed claim form and claim discharge voucher.
16. The materials on record reveal that on receipt of Ext-8 Complainant remained silent and without being complied with the direction given in Ext-8 instituted this case.
17. For the reasons of non-production of documents as directed, we find it expedient to direct the Complainant to fulfill the necessary required official formalities before the opposite party No.1 and on completion of the formalities, the opposite party on the basis of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court referred to hereinbefore shall release 75% of the IDV within 30 days. On its failure to release the amount within the stipulated period the amount of 75% of the IDV shall carry an interest @9% per annum from the date of completion of official formalities till realization of the amount in full.
Having regard to the entire facts discussed above, we leave the parties to bear their own cost.
O R D E R
Consequently, the complaint stands allowed. The Complainant shall fulfill the necessary required official formalities before the opposite party No.1 and on completion of the formalities, the opposite party, is directed to release 75% of the IDV within 30 days. On its failure to release the amount within the stipulated period, the amount of 75% of the IDV shall carry an interest @ 9% per annum from the date of completion of official formalities till realization of the amount in full.
The parties are left to bear their own cost.
Given under our hands and seal of this Forum this 2nd day of January 2019.
Dictated and corrected by: Pronounced and delivered
( A.Devee)
President (A. DEVEE)
District Consumer D.R Forum, President
SonitpurTezpur District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Sonitpur,Tezpur
We agree:- (P.DAS) (SMT.S.BORA)
Member Member
