Haryana

StateCommission

A/1141/2016

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SONA GOODS CARRIER - Opp.Party(s)

VINOD GUPTA

17 Nov 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

                                                                First Appeal No.1141 of 2016

                                                                Date of Institution:30.11.2016

                                                               Date of Decision: 17.11.2017

 

The New India Assurance Company Limited, SCO No.36-37, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh through its duly authorized officer.

….. Appellant

Versus

M/s Sona Goods Goods Carrier Pvt. Ltd., Rohtak Road, Gohana, Tehsil Gohana, District Sonepat through its Director Sandeep Goyal.

                                      …..Respondent

 

CORAM:             Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.

                             Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                                                                                                                        

Present:               Shri Vinod Gupta, Advocate for appellant.

                             Shri A.S.Khara, Advocate for respondent.

                                                   O R D E R

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

As per complainant his truck bearing  HR-69-A-9275 was insured with opposite party (O.P.) for the period 23.03.2014 to 22.03.2015 and insured declare value (IDV) was Rs.23,00,000/-. On 02.11.2014 this vehicle met with an accident and was badly damaged.  As per report of surveyor the loss was to the tune of Rs.14,93,500/-, but, vide letter dated 31.08.2015 O.ps. repudiated his claim on the ground that licence of driver was not valid, whereas as per letter dated 04.12.2014 issued by concerned authority Licence was valid.

2.      In reply, it was submitted by O.P. that as per  report given by competent authority licence No.5558/MKG/PROF/10 was not issued by competent authority of Nagaland, so his claim was rightly repudiated.

3.      After hearing both the parties, learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonepat (In short “District Forum”) allowed complaint vide impugned order dated 10.10.2016 and directed as under:-

“We have perused the report of Raj Kumar Singal and Associates and the claim on net loss basis was assessed to the tune of Rs.14,93,500/-. So, in our view, the complainant is entitled to get the amount of Rs.14,93,500/- (Rs. Fourteen lacs ninety three thousand five hundred) from the respondent insurance company because as per authoritative decision of the Hon’ble National Commission and Hon’ble State Commission, the surveyor is the best person to assess the loss and his report cannot be brushed aside. Thus, we hereby direct the respondent insurance company to make the payment of Rs.14,93,500/- as assessed by the surveyor to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 09% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint till its realization.  The respondent is also directed to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.5000/- (Rs.Five thousand) for rendering deficient services, for harassment and under the head of litigation expenses.”

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom O.P./insurance company has preferred this appeal.

5.      Arguments heard. File perused.

6.      Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that driver of truck Mr. Satish was not having valid driving licence at the time of accident, which is clear from the perusal of reports Ex.R-14 and Ex.R16. In this way terms and conditions of insurance policy were violated and that is why the claim was rightly repudiated.  Learned District Forum failed to take into consideration that when licence is fake, compensation cannot be granted. Even otherwise Satish was not resident of  Nagaland and was not entitled to get licence from that place. Reports produced by complainant are not supported by any  evidence, so they cannot be relied upon. So impugned order be set aside.

7.      This argument is of no avail.  Neither it is alleged in reply of the complaint nor in the grounds of the appeal that Satish Kumar was not entitled to obtain licence from that place.  O.P. alleged since very beginning that driving licence of Sh. Satish was fake, so this fact cannot be agitated at this stage. 

8.      Further, it cannot be alleged by O.P. that reports of complainant be not looked into. Whereas it is asking to look into it’s report.  Transport Authority of Nagaland gave reports Ex.C-C, C-D, C-E and C-8 that licence in question was very much genuine.  If surveyor has given affidavit about reports produced by O.Ps. it does not mean that reports produced by O.P. can be looked into and not of complainant. Sandeep Goyal appeared on behalf of complainant and tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/B for proving reports produced by him, so there is no reason to disbelieve these reports. Report Ex.C-8 was obtained by O.P. under RTI but intentionally withheld the same.

9.      More so, Rajesh Kumar surveyor sent e-mail  Ex.C-F to O.P. wherein it was mentioned that licence of Satish Kumar was valid.  O.P. is willing to place reliance upon on only those reports which are favourable to it  and not the complainant.  O.P. could have summoned an official from the office of Regional Transport Authority, Nagaland to prove that no licence was ever issued in the name of Satish. In such like matter the benefit of doubt is to be given to the consumer as opined by Hon’ble National Commission in Revision petition No.4544 of 2012 decided on 27.11.2013 titled as National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Gopanaboina Sathyam and revision petition No.3236 of 2013 decided on 07.08.2014 titled as Sh. Abhishek Jain Vs. HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd.  So these arguments are of no avail. Findings of learned District Forum are well reasoned, based on law and facts and cannot be disturbed. Resultantly, appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

10.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.

 

November 17th, 2017             Urvashi Agnihotri                                R.K.Bishnoi,                                                               Member                                              Judicial Member                                                         Addl. Bench                                        Addl.Bench                

S.K.