Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/936/2021

Ramit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

S.R. Bansal

01 Jan 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/936/2021
Date of Institution	:	23.12.2021
Date of Decision	:	1/1 /2024

 

Ramit Singh S/o Shri Chamba Ram R/o village Haripur Sandholi, Tehsil Baddi, District Solan (HP) Pincode 173 205.

 

… Complainant(s)

V E R S U S

1. The Divisional Manager, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office No.01, SCO No.99-100, First floor, Sector 17B, Chandigarh 160 017 (Policy issuing Branch).
2. The Chief Regional  Manager,  The Oriental Insurance Company Limited , Regional Office:- SCO 109-111, Surendra Building Sector 17-D, Chandigarh 160 017.
3. The Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Divisional Office – Sai Market, Lower Mall, Patiala 147001.
4. Shri Mandeep Kataria, Authorized Surveyor of the Oriental Insurance Company Limited,  through Divisional office, the  Oriental Insurance Company Limited Sai Market, Lower Mall Patiala 147001.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

 

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. S.R. Bansal, Advocate for complainant
	:	Sh. Vishal Ahuja, , Advocate for OPs

 

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 34 & 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against the opposite parties  (hereinafter referred to as the OPs). The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the averments as projected in the consumer complaint that the complainant is owner of truck having registration No. HP12C-1899 (hereinafter to be referred as subject truck) which the complainant got insured from  OP No.1  on payment of premium amount of Rs.40183/-. The policy was valid w.e.f. 28.5.2020 to 27.5.2021 (hereinafter to be referred as subject policy). On the morning of 1.3.2021  the subject  truck met with an accident  in the area of Panjokhra police station in Distt. Ambala. The matter was reported to the police which resulted in registering FIR Annexure C-3. Thereafter the matter was also intimated to OP No.1 who deputed a surveyor and got the loss of accidental vehicle assessed and accordingly on the instance of OPs the complainant got the subject truck repaired and the repairer had raised a total bill of Rs. 1,20,400/-, which was also submitted with OP No.1 for settlement. Thereafter the complainant approached the OPs No.1 to 3 with the request to settle his genuine claim but with no result. On 15.11.2021,  the complainant received a letter from the OP No.1, asking the complainant for two documents i.e. National authorization  and tax receipt   of the relevant time and declared the claim of the complainant as no claim  and  accordingly the claim of the complainant was closed.  Thereafter the complainant issued legal notice dated 13.11.2021 to OP No.1 to 3 explaining about the validity of the documents which was deposited by him with the OP insurance company but despite of that the claim of the complainant was not settled by the OP insurance company. The aforesaid act amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. 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, concealment of facts, cause of action  and also that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. On merits admitted that the subject truck was insured with the OPs with IDV of Rs.4,00,000/-and the same was valid at the time of accident. However, it is alleged that OP No.1 deputed Sh. Shamsher Chand as surveyor to assess the loss and in his report he has assessed the loss for a sum of Rs.40,450/-  on the basis of estimates submitted by the complainant and had also found during investigation that the complainant had not deposited the of Haryana government tax at the time of accident and further that the National permit  was valid upto 20.6.2019 which was not got renewed by the complainant  and in pursuance of the report of the surveyor, the complainant was asked to provide National authorization permit but he could not produce the same accordingly the claim of the complainant was closed.  The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
3. In rejoinder, complainant reiterated  the claim put forth in the consumer complaint and prayer has been made that the consumer complaint be allowed as prayed for.

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, including the written arguments.
   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  at the time of accident the subject truck was insured with the OP No.1 vide policy Annexure C-1, which was valid w.e.f. 28.5.2020 to 27.5.2021 and further that the subject truck met with an accident on the relevant date, time and place i.e. within the area of District Ambala, Haryana as is also evident from copy of FIR Annexure C-3 and further that the claim of the complainant was closed by the OPs on the ground that he could not submit the documents asked by the OPs i.e. National permit to ply the  subject truck within the  state of Haryana and also the tax receipt which the complainant could not produce and the claim of the complainant was accordingly closed by the  OP insurance company, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if the OP insurance company is  unjustified in closing the  genuine claim of the complainant and the complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed for, as is the case of the complainant or if the OP insurance company has rightly closed the claim of the complainant for non-submission of the documents i.e. National Permit and tax receipt and on account of  fundamental breach of the subject policy and the complaint is liable to dismissed as is the  defence of OPs.
   2. In the back drop 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 led by them and in order to determine the real controversy between the parties the same are required to be scanned carefully.  
   3. Perusal of claim closer report Annexure C-2 indicates that the OPs insurance company have closed the claim of the complainant for non compliance of the request of the OP insurance company to submit the following documents
      1. National authorization validity from 24.7.2020 to 20.6.2021 as on date of accident

 

2. Tax receipt as on date of accident.

 

 

4. Perusal of Annexure C  and D indicates that the validity of the National Permit  authorization was valid upto 20.6.2019 whereas the validity of basic goods permit was upto 17.7.2023 from the date of issuance of permit i.e. 24.7.2018. This permit  further indicates that the complainant being National permit holder   had paid consolidated fees of Rs.16,200/-  on 24.7.2018. Thus, one thing is clear  that the complainant had deposited the tax and was  permitted to ply the subject truck within the state of Himachal Pradesh w.e.f. 18.7.2018 to 17.7.2023 as is also evident from Annexure D the copy of permit  in respect of goods permit  covering the region/moterable roads in Himachal Pradesh.
5. Admittedly the subject truck met with an accident  beyond the state of Himchal Pradesh i.e. in District Ambala in the state of Haryana.
6. The OPs have resisted the claim of the complainant on the ground that the complainant was not possessing any permit to ply the subject truck within the state of Haryana at the time of accident and thus there is fundamental breach  of the subject policy as  the complainant had driven the subject vehicle beyond the state of Himachal Pradesh i.e. within District Ambala in the state of Haryana and the claim  of the complainant was rightly closed. However, there is no force in the contentions of the OPs No. 1 to 3 as it has already been held by the Hon’ble National Commission in the case titled as   United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Singhla Engineers & Contractors III 2020(CPJ) 535(NC)  that plying the vehicle in another state without valid route permit would not amount to violation of the condition of the insurance policy as it is not the case  where there was no route permit at all. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under:-

 “There is a huge distinction between not having a route permit at all and having a route permit but not having the relevant route permit at a point of time.  Latter is the situation in the case at hand.  It is reasonable to say that the complainant, as soon as it became aware that it did not possess a route permit for the accident site, took immediate steps to rectify the situation.  Nothing greatly amiss was found in such conduct by the concerned Haryana authorities either as such a permit was granted with retrospective effect. This suggests that non-possession of a route permit was not an act of intent, with any malafide motive; indeed, it could not be as it is hard to imagine how the complainant would have gained by not having a route permit.  The very fact that the complainant had a route permit for Punjab, it was surely not a problem to have one for Haryana also. As argued by the counsel, the vehicle wandered into Haryana without realizing the fact, a reasonable proposition given the contiguity of the two states. The error in not having a route permit was admitted; that this was an error of such seriousness is hard to digest.”

 

7. In the case in hand as it stands proved on record that the complainant was possessing National permit which was valid from 24.7.2018 to 20.6.2019  and perusal of receipt Annexure OP-1/4 further indicates that the complainant had deposited the tax with the Haryana government on the same day i.e. 1.3.2021 at 11:35 A.M. after about four hours of the accident, which had taken place at about 7:30 A.M. permitting him to ply the subject truck within the state of Haryana as such the same cannot be attributed to fundamental breach  of the subject policy and the claim of the of the complainant can be settled on non-standard basis.  
8. As per case of the complainant he  spent an amount of Rs.1,20,400/- towards the  repair of the vehicle and placed on record bills Annexure C-6(colly) whereas as per defence of the OP insurance company, the surveyor assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.40,450/. Perusal of Surveyor Report Annexure OP-1/2 indicates that the surveyor has assessed the loss in the light of the bill submitted by the complainant.
9. In case titled as New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Rabindra Narayan I (2010) CPJ 80 (NC) it is held as under:-

“The Report submitted by the Surveyor is an important piece of evidence and has to be given due weight and relied upon until and unless it is proved by some cogent and reliable evidence that the Report submitted could not be relied upon.”

 

10. The Hon’ble National recently in case titled as Oriental Insurance Co. ltd vs. Arss Infrastructure Project Ltd. II (2023) CPJ 468 (NC) held as under:-

“(i) Insurance — Surveyors’ report — Survey and investigation are one of fundamentals in settling claim, and cannot and should not be disregarded or dismissed without cogent reasons, though it also goes concomitantly that survey or investigation should be convincing and pass test of credence in scrutiny — State Commission has not gone into contents of surveyors’ reports at all on ground that reports were filed belatedly before it — Reports were in any case available before State Commission and as such it ought to have examined their contents rather than dismissing them outright — Depending upon circumstances State Commission could have even imposed terms including cost for belatedly filing reports but to treat them as suspicious and to perfunctorily dismiss them outright merely because they were filed belatedly was not approach either justified or called for — No need to examine surveyors’ reports at this stage at any great length since both parties agree that settlement may be made on basis of respective surveyor’s assessment of actual loss in each case.”

 

11. The  Hon’ble National Commission further in case titled as Detco Textiles Pvt . Ltd. versus New India Assurance Company Ltd. & anr. II (2023) CPJ 535 (NC) held as under:-

“The Surveyor conducted a very detailed inspection of the premises and assessed the loss after due verification of documents. He assessed the total loss to the building, plant & machinery and furniture etc. at Rs.11,21,18,099/- after making necessary deductions of Rs.5,605,905/- towards excess clause and taking care of the process charges, debris removal, architects fee and goods held in trust arrived at the net adjusted loss of Rs.10,65,12,194/-. For every item, the Surveyor had explained the basis of arriving at the amount. The Complainant on the other hand had not placed any evidence to establish that the assessment made by the Surveyor was incorrect. The Complainant, therefore, cannot be allowed the amount beyond the assessment of the Surveyor. We see no reason not to agree with the assessment made by the Surveyor.”

 

12. As held above the surveyor report is an important piece of evidence and has to be given due weightage and can only be ignored if there is any other cogent evidence otherwise, which the complainant has failed to lead by way of any concrete evidence, hence, the complainant is entitled for 75% of the amount as assessed by surveyor on non-standard basis  to the tune of Rs.30,338/- being 75% of Rs40,450/-.

4.    In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is hereby partly allowed and OPs No.1 to 3 are directed as under :-

1. to pay ₹30,338/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from date of closure of claim i.e. 15.11.2021 till onwards.
2. to pay an amount of ₹25,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;
3. to pay ₹10,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

5.    This order be complied with by the OPs No. 1 to 3 within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.

6.    Complaint qua OP No.4 stands dismissed.

7.       Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.

8.    Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced 1/1/2024 mp			Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member