DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                Complaint No.  660

                                                Instituted on:    12.12.2017

                                                Decided on:       23.05.2018

Manpreet Singh son of Nirmal Singh, resident of Village Badrukhan, Tehsil and Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.             The New India Assurance Company Ltd, Branch College Road, Sangrur, Tehsil  Distt. Sangrur through its Branch Manager (Insurer of Car bearing number PB-13-Y-7605).

2.             The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Registered & Head Office: New India Assurance Building, 87, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Fort, Mumbai 400 001 through its Managing Director.

                                                        …Opposite parties

For the complainant  :               Shri N.S.Ghuman, Adv.

For OPs                    :               Shri Ashish Kumar, Adv.

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

1.             Shri Manpreet Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant availed the services of the OPs by getting insured his truck bearing registration number PB-05-H-9515 vide insurance policy number 3613003131150100001994 for the period from 5.3.2016 to 4.3.2017. The grievance of the complainant is that when the said truck loaded with sand was being driven on 6.12.2016 and when it reached in the area of village Kum Kalan, the road was uneven and due to that it unbalanced while passing on that way and due to non balancing of the truck, the back body of the truck was got broken/unbolted and due to that it got damaged and suffered loss.  The complainant also gave intimation about the loss of the truck in question and on the instructions of the OPs, it was got repaired by spending an amount of Rs.1,62,100/- on its repairs and thereafter submitted all the bills to the OPs for payment, but the Ops repudiated the rightful claim of the complainant on the ground that there is no accident occurred. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to pay to the complainant the claim amount of Rs.1,62,100/- along with interest and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2.             In reply filed by the OPs, it is admitted that the vehicle in question was insured with the OPs for the period from 5.3.2016 to 4.3.2017 subject to the terms and conditions of the policy for Rs.5,50,000/-. It is further admitted that after receipt of the intimation dated 12.12.2016, the OP number 1 immediately deputed Manish Chawal Surveyor through RO Ludhiana for spot survey and it was observed that the right side of the load body got dislodged as the load body was weak being truck of 2002 model due to ageing, it could not bear the force/pressure of the sand carries in the truck, as such it is stated that the cause of accident is not an external one.  Further it is averred that thereafter the Ops appointed Er. Ajesh Kumar surveyor and loss assessor to assess the final loss, who assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.79,750/- only.  However, it is stated that the claim has rightly been repudiated by the Ops. Thus, alleging no deficiency in service on their part, the OPs have prayed for dismissal of the claim with special cost.

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-12 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OPs have produced Ex.OP/1 to Ex.OP/13 copies of the documents and affidavit and closed evidence.

4.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

5.             At the outset, it is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant availed the services of the OPs getting insured his truck bearing registration number PB-05-H-9515 for the period from 5.3.2016 to 4.3.2017 by paying the requisite premium of Rs.28,129/-, as is evident from the copy of the insurance policy on record as Ex.C-2.  It is also not in dispute that the vehicle in question was insured comprehensively for Rs.5,50,000/- only.  It is also not in dispute that the vehicle in question damaged badly and suffered huge loss during the subsistence of the insurance policy and it is further not in dispute that the complainant gave the intimation to the OP number 1 about the accident, who appointed surveyor to assess the loss. In the present case, the grievance of the complainant is that despite submission of all the documents to the OPs, the OPs have repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that the claim is not payable as the truck in question was of 2002 model being old one.  But, we are unable to accept such a contention of the learned counsel for the OPs that the claim is not payable being the truck in question of old model.  It is worth mentioning here that the OPs insured the truck on comprehensive basis by charging an amount of Rs.28,129/- from the complainant and at this stage at the time of payment of the claim, it does not seem fair in the mouth of the OPs that the truck in question was old one being 2002 model.  At the time of insuring the truck, it was the option of the Ops not to insure the same and they could refuse the complainant about the insurance of the truck on comprehensive basis. Under the circumstances, we feel that the OPs cannot deny the claim on this score alone and it is a case of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs by not paying the insurance claim of the complainant.

6.             Now, coming to the point of quantum of compensation payable to the complainant. In the present case, the complainant has alleged that he has spent an amount of Rs.1,62,100/- on the repairs of the truck in question, but we have also perused on record the copy of survey report submitted by Shri Ajesh Kumar, a copy of which on record is Ex.OP-7, whereby he has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.79,750/- wherein even towing charges of Rs.2500/- have been added by the surveyor  and as such we feel that ends of justice would be met if the OPs  are directed to pay to the complainant the claim amount of Rs.79,750/- only as assessed by the surveyor in his report, Ex.OP-7.

7.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct OPs to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.79,750/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 12.12.2017 till realisation in full. We further direct the OPs to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5,000/- in lieu of compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment as well as an amount of Rs.5,000/- on account of  litigation expenses. This order of ours shall be complied with by OPs within a period of thirty days of receipt of copy of this order. 

8.              A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                                May 23, 2018.

                                                (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                     President

                                                   (Sarita Garg)

                                                        Member

                                             (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                       Member