Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/391/2023

HARBANS LAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

HARSH NAGRA

03 Jun 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

         

                            

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/391/2023
Date of Institution	:	03/08/2023
Date of Decision	:	03/06/2024

 

 

Sh. Harbans Lal s/o Balbir Singh resident of Thanthewal (125) Rajpura, Nalagarh, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. M/s Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited, Regd. Office SCO 127-128, 1^st Floor, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager.
2. M/s Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited, Regd. Office, 15^th Floor, Tower A, Pensinusla Business Park, Ganpatro Kadam Marg, Off Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai through its Managing Director 400013.

… Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Harsh Nagra, Advocate for complainant
	:	Sh. Sahil Abhi, Advocate for OPs

 

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by Harbans Lal, complainant against the aforesaid opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs).  The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the allegations as projected in the consumer complaint that the complainant is the registered owner of a truck bearing registration No.HP-12L-6013 (hereinafter referred to as “subject truck”) and has been using the same for commercial purposes to earn his livelihood by way of self-employment and copy of RC is Annexure C-1. The complainant got the subject truck insured from the OPs/insurers vide policy (Annexure C-2) which was valid w.e.f. 31.1.2022 to 30.1.2023 (hereinafter referred to as “subject policy”).  On 17.1.2023, the complainant had some urgent work and he asked one driver for driving the subject truck and when the subject truck, being driven by the driver, was on the way from Garhshankar to Hoshiarpur, due to sudden appearance of a Neelgai, the driver suddenly applied brakes, as a result of which he lost control and the subject truck struck against a tree on the right side due to which one tree fell over it and the subject truck overturned and suffered heavy loss.  In order to save his life, the driver jumped out of the subject truck and after gaining consciousness, he called the local police and DDR (Annexure C-3) was recorded.  Intimation about the total loss of the subject truck was also given to the OPs and their representatives assured the complainant that the claim would be settled subject to terms & conditions of the policy by taking into consideration the IDV of the subject truck.  The complainant tried his level best to get the claim settled by approaching the OPs several times, but, the OPs vide letter 20.4.2023 repudiated the claim of the complainant on baseless grounds. The IDV of the subject truck was ₹20.00 lacs and the complainant is entitled for the same alongwith compensation etc. In this manner, the aforesaid act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. OPs were requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2. OPs resisted the consumer complaint and filed their written version, inter alia, taking preliminary objections of maintainability, cause of action and suppression of material facts.  On merits, admitted that the complainant is the registered owner of the subject truck and got the same insured from the answering OPs vide insurance policy, which was valid w.e.f 31.1.2022 to 30.1.2023 with IDV of ₹20.00 lacs.  It is further alleged that on receiving intimation about the accident, OPs had deputed surveyor and loss assessor as well as investigator who accordingly visited the spot and submitted report to the answering OPs by holding that the alleged driver Kulwinder had not suffered injuries in the said accident and the complainant had concealed the material facts qua the driver of the subject truck at the relevant time and accordingly the claim of the complainant was repudiated by the OPs vide letter (Annexure OP-7) as it was found that the alleged driver was not driving the subject truck at the time of accident and the complainant has suppressed/ concealed material facts and thereby violated the terms and conditions of the subject policy. On merits, the facts as stated in the preliminary objections have been reiterated. The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
3. The complainant chose not to file the rejoinder.

2. In order to prove their case, parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the file carefully.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the parties that the complainant is the registered owner of the subject truck and the same was got insured from the OPs vide subject policy (Annexure C-2) w.e.f. 31.1.2022 to 30.1.2023 and the same met with an accident on the Garshankar-Hoshiarpur road, on the relevant date, time and place, as is also evident from the copy of GDD (Annexure C-3) and the claim lodged by the complainant was repudiated by the OPs on the ground that it was found during investigation that the subject truck was not being driven by the alleged driver, Kulwinder as the injuries sustained by him in the accident did not co-relate with the nature of damage caused to the subject truck in the accident, as is also evident from the repudiation letter (Annexure OP-7), the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if the OPs are unjustified in repudiating the genuine claim of the complainant and the complainant is entitled to the reliefs prayed for in the consumer complaint, as is the case of the complainant, or if the OPs have rightly repudiated the claim and the consumer complaint of the complainant, being false and frivolous, is liable to be dismissed, as is the defence of OPs.
   2. In the backdrop of the foregoing admitted and disputed facts on record, one thing is clear that the entire case of the parties is revolving around the documentary evidence placed on record by them in order to prove their respective claim and the same is required to be scanned carefully to determine the real controversy between the parties.
   3. Annexure C-3 is copy of the GDD, having been lodged by the driver Kulwinder, which clearly indicates that immediately after the accident, he had reported the factum of accident to the police.  Perusal of the spot survey report (Annexure OP-3) further indicates that the surveyor deputed by the OPs had found that the subject truck met with an accident and front portion of the same was badly damaged. 
   4. Annexure OP-4 copy of investigator’s report further indicates that the investigator had collected copy of GDD/rapat from the police and had also recorded the statements of the complainant as well as driver Kulwinder who coaxed in one voice the manner in which the accident had taken place and in the accident the said driver had sustained injuries and when the driver got himself medically examined, fracture was found and the prescription slip was also collected by the investigator.  Not only this, the investigator had also recorded the statement of one Raspal Singh who also deposed to the investigator that he came to know about the accident of the subject truck on 17.1.2023.
   5. Even after receiving aforesaid spot survey report as well investigation report (Annexure OP-3 & OP-4), OPs also got a spot survey report through Impartial Insurance Surveyors and Loss Assessors Pvt. Ltd, who had also submitted its final survey report (Annexure OP-5) and had opined that the injuries alleged to be found on the person of the driver could not have been caused while sitting on the driver seat.  However, as it stands proved on record that the driver had sustained injuries as fracture tibula with wound on his left leg and the driver and other person who immediately came to know about the accident have deposed before the investigator the manner in which the accident had taken place, which fact was also recorded in the DDR (Annexure C-3), and to that extent the evidence has not been rebutted by the OPs with any cogent evidence to falsify the fact that the subject truck was not being driven by the driver, Kulwinder and by simply saying that particular injuries were not sustained by the driver in the accident itself will not falsify the case of the complainant, especially when the factum of driving of the subject truck by aforesaid Kulwinder, at the relevant time and place, stands proved on record.
   6. Moreover, when OPs have not uttered even a single word that the subject truck has not been badly damaged in the accident, rather the surveyor has assessed the loss to the subject truck and thereby held the liability of the OPs to the tune of ₹15,08,705/- in its report (Annexure OP-5), it is safe to hold that OPs were unjustified in repudiating the claim of the complainant and said act certainly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part.
   7. Now coming to the quantum of amount to be awarded in the instant case, admittedly when the IDV of the subject truck is ₹20.00 lacs and the surveyor has assessed the loss to the subject truck, which is more than 75% of the IDV, it is safe to hold that the subject truck has to be treated as total loss, as per the terms and conditions of the subject policy, and the OPs are liable to pay to the complainant the IDV of ₹20.00 lacs alongwith interest and compensation etc.
4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is hereby partly allowed and the OPs are directed as under :-

1. to pay the IDV of ₹20.00 lacs (less compulsory deductible/excess clause, if any) to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of repudiation of the claim i.e. 20.4.2023 onwards. The wreck/salvage of the subject truck shall, however, be retained and disposed of by the OPs/insurer at their own.
2. to pay ₹20,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment;
3. to pay ₹10,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

5. This order be complied with by the OPs within forty five days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, the payable amounts, mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, shall carry interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
6. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.
7. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

03/06/2024 hg	Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
	Sd/- [Surjeet Kaur] Member
	Sd/- [Suresh Kumar Sardana] Member