DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.
Complaint No. 601
Instituted on: 07.10.2016
Decided on: 15.03.2017
Bhola Singh s/o Amar Singh R/O Village Namol, Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur.
…Complainant
Versus
The Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. 2nd Floor, Above Hotel Hot Chop, Kaula Park, Sangrur , Tehsil and District Sangrur.
..Opposite party.
For the complainant : Shri J.S.Kaler, Adv.
For Opp. party : Shri Darshan Gupta, Adv.
Quorum: Sukhpal Singh Gill, President
Sarita Garg, Member
Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member
Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.
1. Shri Bhola Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite party (referred to as OP in short) on the ground that the complainant availed the services of the OP by getting insured his tractor Swaraj Make bearing registration number PB-13-F-1564 from the OP vide insurance policy number 1-4GI4KOT for the period from 17.3.2016 to 16.3.2017 by paying the requisite premium of Rs.7463/-. It is further averred that during the subsistence of the insurance policy, the vehicle in question while it was being used for agricultural purpose, in which the back portion of the tractor, where the trailor is being attached, got damaged, as such, the complainant immediately intimated the OP about the damage. The OP immediately appointed surveyor Shri Rajesh Aggarwal for spot inspection, who reached at the spot and took photographs. Thereafter the complainant parked the tractor at Sandhey Motors, Sunam for repairs and at that time the surveyor also visited the spot and inspected the tractor. Further case of the complainant is that on the assurance of the surveyor, the complainant got repaired the tractor by spending an amount of Rs.1,24,355/- and after repairs submitted all the bills to the OP, but the claim was not paid despite serving of legal notice upon the OP. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complainant has prayed that the OP be directed to pay to the complainant the amount of Rs.1,24,355/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of accident till realisation and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.
2. In reply of the complaint filed by the OP, legal objections have been taken up on the grounds that the complainant has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present complaint, that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and that the complainant has unnecessarily dragged the OP into unwanted litigation. On merits, it is admitted that the vehicle in question is insured with the OP under the policy as stated above. It is stated that on receiving the intimation on 15.7.2016 regarding alleged accident of the vehicle in question as stated in the claim form, the tractor trolley loaded with soul was being driven out of the fields and suddenly the drawl hook got broken which damaged the parts of the tractor, as such the Op immediately appointed Shri Rajesh Aggarwal, surveyor, who submitted his report whereby assessed the claim to the tune of Rs.45,270/-. Further case of the Op is that on inspection of the vehicle regarding cause of loss, he found that the tractor trolley is not covered in the insurance coverage and in opinion he stated that the trolley might be carrying extra load which has got broken the drawl hook which is not an accident, the insurer may look whether the claim is payable as no external force has hit the tractor and as such, after receipt of the report the claim of the complainant was repudiated vide letter dated 8.11.2016.
3. The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-6 copies of bills, Ex.C-7 copy of legal notice, Ex.C-8 copy of reply of repudiation letter, Ex.C-9 copy of RC, Ex.C-10 copy of insurance policy, Ex.C-11 copy of DL, Ex.C-12 copy of postal receipt and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP has produced Ex.OP/1 affidavit of Sanket Gupta, Ex.OP/2 affidavit of Rajesh Aggarwal, Ex.OP/3 copy of repudiation letter, Ex.OP/4 copy of assessment processing sheet, Ex.OP-5 copy of claim settlement detail, Ex.OP-6 copy of insurance policy, Ex.OP-7 copy of terms and conditions of the policy, Ex.OP-8 copy of motor claim form, Ex.OP-9 copy of survey report and closed evidence.
4. We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite party and evidence produced on the file and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.
5. It is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant got insured his vehicle in question for Rs.3,00,001/- with the OP by paying the requisite premium, as is evident from the copy of insurance policy, Ex.C-10.
6. It is also not in dispute that the vehicle in question met with an accident on 15.07.2016, intimation of which was given to the OP, as such after receipt of the intimation, the OP immediately appointed surveyor Shri Rajesh Aggarwal, to asses the loss, who submitted his report, Ex.OP-9. But, thereafter, the OP after applying mind, the claim of the complainant was repudiated on the ground that the tractor trolley is not covered under the insurance coverage and further the surveyor opined that the trolley might be carrying extra load, which has got broken the drawl hook, which is not an accident and the insurer may look whether the claim is payable as no external force has hit the tractor. We have perused the whole case file and found no such cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence to support such a contention of the OP that the trolley might be carrying extra load, more so when it is only an presumption of the surveyor. The Punjab and Haryana High Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Anita Singhal and others 2011(3) RCR (CIVIL) 520 has held that the trolley in itself is not a motor vehicle and tractor without attachments of agricultural implements is not useable for agricultural purpose, Hence, a trolley, not being a complete motor vehicle, is not required to be separately insured and for the liability arising out of accident with the trolley attached to the insurer tractor, insurer would be liable to indemnify the insured, preferred to the contrary view taken by single benches of other High Court. The insurance company was held liable to satisfy the claim. As such, we are of the considered opinion that the above said law is fully applicable in the present case, more so when the OP has miserably failed to prove on record that the tractor in question suffered loss due to any trolley attached with the tractor. Further we may mention that it is on record that the surveyor Shri Rajesh Aggarwal, assessed the claim payable to the tune of Rs.55,269/- only, whereas the complainant has claimed an amount of Rs.1,24,355/- on the basis of the bills produced on record Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-6, but we are unable go with such a contention of the learned counsel for the complainant, as the Op has produced on record the report of IRDA surveyor assessing the claim payable to the tune of Rs.55,269/- only.
7. We have perused the whole case file thoroughly and failed to find out any cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence on record to establish that the vehicle of the complainant suffered a loss to the tune of Rs.1,24,355/- as claimed by the complainant. However, we fee that the ends of justice would be met if the OP is directed to pay to the complainant the amount of Rs.55,269/- as assessed by the surveyor vide his report Ex.OP/9.
8. The insurance companies are in the habit to take these type of projections to save themselves from paying the insurance claim. The insurance companies are only interested in earning the premiums and find ways and means to decline claims. The above said view was taken by the Hon’ble Justice Ranjit Singh of Punjab and Haryana High Court in case titled as New India Assurance Company Limited versus Smt. Usha Yadav and others 2008(3) R.C.R. 9 Civil) 111.
9. In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OP to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.55,269/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 07.10.2016 till realisation. We further order the OP to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.10,000/- in lieu of consolidated amount of compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment and Rs.5000/- in lieu of litigation expenses.
10. This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.
Pronounced.
March 15, 2017.
(Sukhpal Singh Gill)
President
(Sarita Garg)
Member
(Vinod Kumar Gulati)
Member
