Haryana

Sonipat

CC/22/2016

Smt. Om Pati W/o Ram Kuwar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

R.L. Singla

11 Aug 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SONEPAT.

                                                      

 

                                    Complaint No.22 of 2016

                                    Instituted on:15.01.2016

                                    Date of order:11.08.2016

 

1. Om Pati wife of Ram Kuwar son of Khazan,
2. Ram Kuwar son of Khazan, both the residents of

village Baroda Mor, tehsil Gohana, distt. Sonepat.

 

……Complainants

 

                   VERSUS

 

The Branch Manager, Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch office, SCO 232-234, 2^nd Floor, Sector 34A, Chandigarh.

  ……Respondent.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. R.L. Singla, Adv. for complainant.

           Sh. HC Jain, Adv. for respondent.

 

BEFORE-   Nagender Singh, President.

          Smt. Prabha Wati, Member.

          J.L. Gupta, Member.

 

O R D E R

 

        Complainants have filed the present complaint against the respondent alleging therein that their son namely Anil was the registered owner of tractor Swaraj and the same was insured with the respondent vide policy valid w.e.f. 27.6.2013 to 26.6.2014. Unfortunately on 12.11.2013, the said vehicle has met with an accident and Anil had died in the said accident. The tractor was also damaged.  Rapat no.46/13 dated 12.11.2013 was entered in PS Baroda on the statement of the driver namely Ravinder.   The matter was reported by the complainants to the respondent and the respondent allowed the complainants to get repair the damaged tractor and the complainants spent an amount of Rs.55,669/- on account of repair of the damaged tractor.   The complainants have submitted all the original bills and requested the respondent to release the claim amount of damaged vehicle and personal loss compensation amounting to Rs.2 lacs, but of no use and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents which caused unnecessary mental agony and harassment to the complainants. So, they have come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.       The respondent appeared and filed the written statement submitting therein that earlier the complainant no.2 Ram Kuwar had filed the complaint for damage of the tractor in question and no relief was claimed on account of death of Anil in the alleged accident dated 12.11.2013, but under the garb of the order dated 10.12.2015 passed by this Forum in that previous complaint no.349 of 16.12.2014, the complainants have also claimed the relief on account of death of Anil which is patently time barred as the complaint in this regard has been filed after the period of more than 2 years after the death of Anil.    Even otherwise, the claim with regard to the death of Anil is not maintainable in view of the fact that Anil was not driving the tractor in question and he was sitting on its mudguard, whereas as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, in case of personal accident of owner-driver, maximum amount of Rs.2 lacs is payable, it means that risk of owner is covered only if he was sitting in the insured vehicle at the time of alleged accident in the capacity and subject to fulfillment of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. In the present accident, the vehicle was driven by Ravinder and Anil was allegedly sitting on the vehicle beyond its seating capacity i.e. one as per RC and policy.  It is also submitted that Sh. Sanjeev Chhabra was deputed to report about the cause, nature and extent of loss/damage caused to the vehicle and as per his report, net loss was to the tune of Rs.29685/- subject to the terms and conditions of the policy.    After receiving the survey report, it was observed that the insured vehicle was being used for travelling two passengers as mentioned in DDR dated 12.11.2013 which was lodged in respect of the alleged accident which is against the limitation of use . As such, the claim regarding the damage of the insured vehicle and death of Anil were not found payable.  Thus, there is no  deficiency in service on the part of the respondent and the complainant is not entitled for any relief.

3.       We have heard both the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also gone through the entire case file very carefully.

4.       Ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that son of the complainants namely Anil was the registered owner of tractor Swaraj and the same was insured with the respondent vide policy valid w.e.f. 27.6.2013 to 26.6.2014. Unfortunately on 12.11.2013, the said vehicle has met with an accident and Anil had died in the said accident. The tractor was also damaged.  Rapat no.46/13 dated 12.11.2013 was entered in PS Baroda on the statement of the driver namely Ravinder.   The matter was reported by the complainants to the respondent and the respondent allowed the complainants to get repair the damaged tractor and the complainants spent an amount of Rs.55,669/- on account of repair of the damaged tractor.   The complainants have submitted all the original bills and requested the respondent to release the claim amount of damaged vehicle and personal loss compensation amounting to Rs.2 lacs, but of no use and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents which caused unnecessary mental agony and harassment to the complainants.

         Ld. Counsel for the respondent has submitted that earlier the complainant no.2 Ram Kuwar had filed the complaint for damage of the tractor in question and no relief was claimed on account of death of Anil in the alleged accident dated 12.11.2013, but under the garb of the order dated 10.12.2015 passed by this Forum in that previous complaint no.349 of 16.12.2014, the complainants have also claimed the relief on account of death of Anil which is patently time barred as the complaint in this regard has been filed after the period of more than 2 years after the death of Anil.    Even otherwise, the claim with regard to the death of Anil is not maintainable in view of the fact that Anil was not driving the tractor in question and he was sitting on its mudguard, whereas as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, in case of personal accident of owner-driver, maximum amount of Rs.2 lacs is payable, it means that risk of owner is covered only if he was sitting in the insured vehicle at the time of alleged accident in the capacity and subject to fulfillment of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. In the present accident, the vehicle was driven by Ravinder and Anil was allegedly sitting on the vehicle beyond its seating capacity i.e. one as per RC and policy.  It is also submitted that Sh. Sanjeev Chhabra was deputed to report about the cause, nature and extent of loss/damage caused to the vehicle and as per his report, net loss was to the tune of Rs.29685/- subject to the terms and conditions of the policy.    After receiving the survey report, it was observed that the insured vehicle was being used for travelling two passengers as mentioned in DDR dated 12.11.2013 which was lodged in respect of the alleged accident which is against the limitation of use . As such, the claim regarding the damage of the insured vehicle and death of Anil were not found payable.  Thus, there is no  deficiency in service on the part of the respondent and the complainant is not entitled for any relief.

         But we find no force in the arguments advanced by the ld. Counsel for the respondent.  The perusal of the insurance policy shows that the respondent has received an amount of Rs.100/-  as compulsory PA cover for owner-driver for Rs.2 lacs.  The complainant himself was travelling in the tractor being owner  and premium has been taken by the insurance company regarding personal accident.  It is clear that the deceased Anil had died in an accident.  In our view, personal accident is just like the life insurance.  The perusal of the insurance policy also shows that the respondent has charged Rs.50/- as legal liability to paid driver.  So, in our view, the respondent is liable to pay Rs.2 lacs to the complainants.  Accordingly, we hereby direct the respondent to pay Rs.2 lacs to the complainants in equal share i.e. Rs.one lac each.

         As per the complainants, they have spent Rs.55,669/- on the repair of the tractor.  In the present case, Shri Sanjeev Chhabra, Surveyor and Loss Assessor has prepared the surveyor report Annexure R3 and he has assessed the net liability of the insurance company to the tune of Rs.29685/-.  In our view, the complainants are entitled to get the amount of Rs.29685/- as assessed by the surveyor, 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. Accordingly, we hereby direct the respondent insurance company to make the payment of Rs.29685/- to the complainants in equal shares.  The respondent is also directed to compensate the complainants to the tune of Rs.two thousand for rendering deficient services, for harassment and under the head of litigation expenses.

         With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed.

         Certified copies of order be provided to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

(Prabha Devi-Member)    (J.L. Gupta Member) (Nagender Singh-President)

DCDRF, Sonepat.      DCDRF, Sonepat.      DCDRF Sonepat.

 

Announced:11.8.2016