DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

===========

Surjit Singh s/o Sh. Manohar Singh, resident of V.P.O. Bhojpur, Tehsil Sunder Nagar, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh.

Second Address:-

Booth No.7, Delhi Manali Goods Carrier, Sector 26, Chandigarh.

                   --- Complainant

V E R S U S

1]      The New India Assurance Co. Limited, SCO No. 54-55, Sec.34-A, Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager.

2]      The New India Assurance Co. Limited, New India Assurance Building, 87, M.G.Road, Fort, Mumbai, through its General Manager.

3]      The New India Assurance Co. Limited, Regional Office: SCO No. 36-37, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh, through its Regional Manager.

---- Opposite Parties

BEFORE:      SH. LAKSHMAN SHARMA                    PRESIDENT

MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA                       MEMBER

                   SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU             MEMBER

Argued By:             Sh. Vishal Ahuja, Counsel for Complainant.

Sh. R.K. Bashamboo, Counsel for Opposite Parties.

PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

1.                Briefly stated, the Complainant got his TATA Truck bearing Regn.No. HP-32-2733, insured with the Opposite Party No.1, vide Policy Annexure C-1, valid from 28.06.2010 to 27.06.2011, by paying a premium of Rs.13,286/-. The vehicle was insured for Rs.2,49,500/-. Unfortunately, on 15.07.2010, the said vehicle met with an accident and fell into gorge near Shargaon, Distt. Sirmaur, H.P. and was damaged extensively. The matter was reported to the police and an F.I.R. was also registered. The Complainant brought the vehicle to the Workshop at Darai, Near Railway Station, Chandigarh, for getting it repaired. The Surveyor of Opposite Party No.1 was called to inspect the vehicle. The Surveyor took the photographs of the vehicle and completed the formalities. Since the vehicle was declared to be a total loss, the Complainant approached the Opposite Party No.1 for settlement of his claim, but he was asked to submit certain documents, which were duly supplied. It is alleged that even after complying with all the formalities, the Opposite Party No.1 kept on delaying the matter on one pretext or the other. After delaying the matter for almost 10 months, Opposite Party No.3 vide letter dated 15.3.2011 (Annexure C-2) repudiated the claim of the Complainant, on the ground that six persons were travelling in the vehicle out of which two were unknown and unauthorized persons and also because of the vehicle being overloaded at the time of accident. Hence, this complaint.      

2.                Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.  

3.                Opposite Parties in their joint reply, while contesting the claim of the Complainant have mentioned that on receipt of intimation, the Opposite Parties appointed M/s Royal Associates as Investigators and Sh. R.S. Arora as final Surveyor. The Surveyor assessed the loss for a sum of Rs.2,21,063/- on repair basis and Rs.1,73,500/- on total loss basis. The value of the salvage was assessed as Rs.75,000/- while calculating the loss on total loss basis (Annexure R-1). The Investigator also carried on his investigation. During investigation he met the insured and occupants etc. He recorded their statement also. It was concluded by him that at the time of the accident the vehicle was carrying 426 boxes of applies. Each box was of 25 Kg and as such the weight of the loaded goods was more than the carrying capacity. The carrying capacity of the goods were 8550 Kgs whereas it was carrying 10650 Kgs. Still further it was found that at the time of the accident the truck was carrying 2 unauthorized passengers (copy of Investigator Report Annexure R-2). Further clarifications were also sought from the Investigator and the said letter is at Annexure R-3. The answering Opposite Parties further pleaded that it is a case of overloading and carrying of unauthorized passengers, therefore, it amounted to violation of the terms and conditions of the policy (Annexure R-4).  Hence, the claim was rightly repudiated vide letter dated 15.3.2011 (Annexure R-5). Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record in support of their contentions.

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

6.                The present complaint of the Complainant has been filed on the ground that the genuine claim of the Complainant was repudiated by the Opposite Parties vide their letter dated 15.3.2011 (Annexure C-2) claiming that the Complainant having breached the terms & conditions of the policy by allowing more than the authorized number of passengers to travel in the vehicle at the time when the vehicle met with an accident on the fateful day and claiming that the vehicle was also overloaded, which too is a violation of policy terms & conditions.

7.                The basic facts about the Complainant being a consumer by having subscribed for the insurance policy for his vehicle bearing Regn No. HP-32-2733 and that the vehicle having met with an accident are admitted. A spot survey was got conducted and further, a detailed survey report was prepared to assess the loss to the vehicle. This survey report is annexed as Annexure R-1, vide which the own damage claim of the Complainant was assessed for Rs.1,73,500/-, after deducting the salvage value assessed as Rs.75,000/-. Even the assessment on the total loss basis was assessed to the tune of Rs.2,02,163/-, which is above the 75% of the I.D.V. of the vehicle which was Rs.2,49,500/-. However, the incident was referred for investigation by the Opposite Parties and the investigation report which has been tendered as Annexure R-3,which declares that the vehicle at the time of having met with an accident was carrying 06 Nos. of passengers, including the driver and the cleaner, along with the owner of the goods loaded in the vehicle. Furthermore, as per the claim of the Opposite Parties, the load carrying capacity of the vehicle is mentioned as 8550 Kgs whereas it is claimed that the vehicle was carrying a laden weight of 10650 Kgs. However, the Opposite Parties did not bring on record any weighing slip to substantiate their version.  Even the investigation report mentions a vague estimate of 35 Kgs being the weight of each box loaded in the vehicle. Hence, in these circumstances, the fact that the vehicle was overloaded, is not proved.  

8.                Furthermore, though the Complainant having mentioned in para 9 of his complaint that the allegation of the Opposite Parties with regard to the quantity of the goods and the passengers carried by the vehicle are baseless and there has been no breach of terms & conditions of the insurance policy.  Having gone through the insurance policy as well as the registration certificate of the vehicle insured with the Opposite Parties, it has come to light that the vehicle in question was registered with the seating capacity of six (06) persons, as is revealed from the copy of Registration Certificate annexed at Pg.158 of the reply of the Opposite Parties. But, however, the insurance policy issued by the Opposite Parties mentions the passenger capacity only as one (01), which actually is against the prescribed limit mentioned in the Registration Certificate. From this document, it is proved that the vehicle while carrying six passengers including the driver was within the permissible limits of its passenger carrying capacity, as per the Registration Certificate annexed at Pg. 158 of the reply.   In the given situation, the Opposite Parties themselves have failed to prove both the allegations by bringing on record any cogent, reliable and trust worthy evidence, in support of their reply/ version. Hence, in these circumstances, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties.

9.                In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Parties are found deficient in giving proper service to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties, and the same is allowed, qua them. The Opposite Parties are directed:-

[a]    To pay Rs.1,73,500/- to the Complainant on net of salvage basis as assessed by the Surveyor;

[b)    To pay Rs.25,000/-on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and physical harassment to the Complainant; 

[c]    To pay Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation;

10.              The above said order shall be complied within 45 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @18% per annum on the amount mentioned in per sub-para [a] & [b] of para 9 above, apart from cost of litigation of Rs.10,000/-, from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid.  

11.              Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

10^th May, 2013.                                        

Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

 (MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER