DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA.
CC.No. 591 of 13-12-2011
Decided on 16-07-2012
1. Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Nabha Road, Patiala, through its Managing Director.
2. Pepsu Road Transport Corporation through its General Manager Bathinda Depot, Bathinda.
........Complainants
Versus
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., through its MD, Head Office, Oriental House, A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi.
The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., through its Chief Regional Manager, Regional Office, SCO No.109-111, Surendra Building, Section 17-D, Chandigarh.
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., through its Senior Division Officer, Division Office, 4501, Bank Bazar, Bathinda.
.......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President.
Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member.
Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur, Member
Present:-
For the Complainant: Sh. M.L Sharma, counsel for the complainants.
For Opposite parties: Sh. Sunder Gupta counsel for opposite parties.
ORDER
VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-
1. The complainants have filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (Here-in-after referred to as an ’Act’). The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainants are owner of PRTC bus bearing registration No.PB-11AP-8907, Engine No.592946 Chasis No.0488, Ashok Leyland Model 2010 and Regional Transport Authority Ferozepur issued permit for route/ area vide its No.530-32/Reg 2001. The said bus was got comprehensively insured with the opposite parties vide certificate-cum-policy No.121100/31/2010/2300 effective from 23.2.2010 to 22.2.2011 for sum of Rs.27,30,300/- with other benefits and complainant paid a total premium of Rs.53987/-. The complainant alleged that no terms and conditions of the policy were ever supplied to him. On 14.1.2011 the aforesaid bus met with an accident and suffered the loss to the tune of Rs.46364/-, the intimation regarding the accident was given to the opposite parties and complainants lodged the claim with the opposite parties and had completed all the requisite formalities for lodging the insurance claim and supplied all the required documents to the opposite parties. The complainants had approached the insurance company time and again to settle the claim of the complainant but a period of 6 months has already lapsed but the opposite parties have not settled the claim of the complainants till date. The complainants have also got served a legal notice to the opposite parties on 1.9.2011. Hence, the complainants have filed the present complaint for seeking the directions to the opposite parties to pay the claimed amount alongwith cost and compensation.
2. The notice was issued to the opposite parties. The opposite parties after appearing before this forum have filed their joint written statement and have taken the legal objection that complainants carry on commercial activity and has fleet of buses which are being plied over the State of Punjab and adjoining States including the bus in question to earn huge profits, so the complainants are not consumer as defined under the ’Act’. The other objection taken by the opposite parties is that this forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint as the insurance policy was obtained by the complainant No.1 from Bombay Office of the Oriental Insurance Company and the occurrence took place at District Barnala, therefore no cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. The opposite parties further pleaded that their liability is subject to terms and conditions mentioned in the policy and also subject to the conditions that the driver insured should have not violated the terms and conditions of the policy but in the present complaint, the driver of the bus was not holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive the bus and was disqualified to have a licence in his name. On merits the opposite parties admitted the fact that bus bearing registration No.PB-11AP-8907 is insured with opposite party vide policy No.121100/31/2011/2300 effective from 23.2.2010 to 22.2.2011 and premium has been received. The opposite parties further pleaded that no intimation was given to the opposite parties within stipulated period. After the receipt of intimation Er.Sudhir Malhotra was deputed to assess the loss, who after physical verification assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.29,359/- as per survey report dated 25.3.2011. The complainant has sent the legal notice dated 1.9.2011 which was duly received by the opposite parties.
3. The parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.
4. Arguments heard. The record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused.
5. The complainants submitted that their vehicle bearing registration No.PB-11AP-8907, Engine No.592946 Chasis No.0488, Ashok Leyland Model 201 and Regional Transport Authority Ferozepur issued permit for route/area vide its No.530-32/Reg 2001, met with an accident on 14.1.2011 and suffered the loss to the tune of Rs.46,364/-. The abovesaid vehicle was insured vide certificate-cum-policy No.121100/31/2011/2300 effective from 23.2.2010 to 22.2.2011 for a sum of Rs.27,30,300/- with the opposite parties. The complainants gave the intimation to the opposite parties and lodged their insurance claim and also supplied all the required documents to the opposite parties. Despite the submission of all the required documents their claim has not been settled and a period of 6 months has already been lapsed. The complainants have also got served a legal notice to the opposite parties on 1.9.2011.
6. The opposite parties admitted that insurance policy so purchased by the complainant for the bus bearing registration No.PB-11AP-8907 and has also admitted the accident. The opposite parties have taken the legal objection that the complainants are running the vehicle for the commercial purpose as they are having fleet of buses being plied over the State of Punjab and adjoining States including the bus in question to earn huge profits. As such, the complainants are not the consumers under the ’Act’. The opposite parties have taken other legal objection that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint as the insurance policy was obtained by the complainant No.1 from Bombay Office from the Oriental Insurance Company and accident took place at district Barnala. Therefore, no cause of action has arisen at Bathinda. The opposite parties further pleaded that the driver of the bus was not holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive the bus and was disqualified to have a licence in his name. The opposite parties have further submitted that no intimation was given to the opposite parties within the stipulated period. After the receipt of the intimation Er.Sudhir Malhotra was deputed to assess the loss, who after physical verification assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.29,359/- and gave survey report dated 25.3.2011. The legal notice sent by the complainant was duly received by the opposite parties. A perusal of claim intimation Ex.C10 shows that the accident took place at Tapa.
7. The opposite parties have taken the plea in their joint written statement that the driver of the bus was not holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive the bus and was disqualified to have a licence in his name but Ex.R2 i.e. survey report dated 25.3.2011 reveals the driver particulars that original DL was checked as produced and found in order. Thus, the plea taken by the opposite parties is not tenable. The legal objection taken by opposite parties that this Forum has not territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide this complaint as the policy has been issued from the Bombay Office and the occurrence has taken place at Tapa district Barnala but a perusal of the documents shows that claim intimation has been sent from Bathinda and all the correspondence have been done by PRTC from Bathinda. Thus, this Forum has the jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint. The other objection taken by the opposite parties that the complainants are running the vehicle for the commercial purpose as they are having fleet of buses and being plied over the State of Punjab and adjoining areas. The complainants have purchased the insurance policy to indemnify the loss in case of any mishap, not for the further sale of the cover note/ policy. The insurance is purchased for reimbursement of loss in case of any accident. As such, it does not fall under the category of commercial. Hence, this objection is also not tenable and complainants are consumer under the ’Act’. Er. Sudhir Malhotra has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.29,359/-. The complainant has produced Ex.C2 quotation / estimate of Rs.46,364.61/- whereas the surveyor has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.29,359/-. The survey report is a vital document which cannot be brushed aside without any cogent and convincing evidence. Thus, the complainants are entitled to the amount assessed by the surveyor as per the survey report i.e. to the tune of Rs.29,359/-.
7. Therefore, in view of what has been discussed above, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Thus, this complaint is accepted with Rs.3,000/- as cost and compensation and the opposite parties are directed to pay the amount of Rs.29,359/- to the complainants.
8. The compliance of this order be done within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. In case of non compliance of this order interest @ 9 % will be yield on the amount of Rs.29,359/- till realization.
9. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced in open Forum:-
16-07-2012 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni)
President
(Amarjeet Paul)
Member
(Sukhwinder Kaur)
Member
