DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA.

CC.No. 198 of 27-04-2012

Decided on 17-10-2012

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

1.The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., through its MD, Head Office, Oriental House, A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi.

2.The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., through its Chief Regional Manager, Regional Office, SCO No.109-111, Surendra Building, Section-17D, Chandigarh.

3.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 Complainants: Sh.Gulab Singh, 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 the owner of the PRTC bus bearing registration No.PB-11AL-9652, Engine No.550729, Chassis No.0495115, Ashok Leyland Model 2008 and Regional Transport Authority Ferozepur issued permit for route/ area. The said bus was got comprehensively insured with the opposite parties vide certificate-cum-policy No.231200/31/2010/664 effective from 23.5.2009 to 22.5.2010 for a sum of Rs.28,74,000/- with other benefits and the complainants paid a premium of Rs.54,956/-. The complainants alleged that no terms and conditions of the policy were supplied to them. On 27.12.2009, the aforesaid bus met with an accident and suffered the loss to the tune of Rs.4,25,279/-, the intimation regarding the accident was given to the opposite parties and complainants lodged the claim of Rs.4,25,279/- 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 have been approaching the insurance company time and again to settle the claim but a period of 6 months has already lapsed but the opposite parties have not settled their claim. Mr. Arun Kumar and Co, Surveyor and Loss Assessor gave its survey report and assessed the estimate loss of the bus to the tune of Rs.4,25,279/-. 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 served 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 activities and have fleet of buses which are being plied all 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 drivers of the bus were not holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive the bus and were disqualified to have a licence in their name. The insurance company has written letters dated 5.8.2010, 25.9.2010 and 27.10.2010 to produce the driving licence and other documents of the vehicle, but the complainants have failed to produce the same. The claim of the complainants have rightly been repudiated vide letter dated 28.12.2010 as the drivers of the insured bus i.e. Kuldeep Singh and Baljinder Singh were not holding the effective and valid driving licence. The amount of compensation is highly excessive and exorbitant. The opposite parties admitted that the bus bearing registration No.PB-11AL-9652 is insured with the opposite parties vide policy No.No.231200/31/2010/664 effective from 23.5.2009 to 22.5.2010 and premium has been received. The complainants have got the aforesaid bus insured from Oriental Insurance Company from Chandigarh DO II and denied the fact that no terms and conditions were supplied to the complainants. No intimation was given to the the opposite parties within stipulated period. The opposite parties further admitted that the opposite parties have deputed the surveyor Er.Arun Kumar to assess the loss, he assessed the net loss to the tune of Rs.3,21,661/-, however the complainants have violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, as such the claim is not payable.

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. Admittedly, the bus bearing registration No.PB-11AL-9652, Engine No.550729, Chassis No.0495115, Ashok Leyland Model 2008 was comprehensively insured with the opposite parties vide certificate-cum-policy No.231200/31/2010/664 effective from 23.5.2009 to 22.5.2010 for a sum of Rs.28,74,000/- with other benefits and the complainants paid a total premium of Rs.54,956/-. On 27.12.2009, the aforesaid bus met with an accident. Mr. Arun Kumar and Co, Surveyor and Loss Assessor gave its survey report and assessed the loss of the bus to the tune of Rs.3,21,661/- but the estimate loss of the said bus is Rs.4,25,279/-.

6. The disputed facts between the parties are that the complainants had applied for insurance claim of Rs.4,25,279/- but the opposite parties have failed to pay the claim amount to the complainants. The complainants have also sent a legal notice to the opposite parties on 1.9.2011.

7. The opposite parties submitted that the drivers of the bus i.e. Kuldeep Singh and Baljinder Singh were not holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive the bus and were disqualified to have a licence in their name as such the claim of the complainants have rightly been repudiated vide letter dated 28.12.2010 . The insurance company has written letters dated 5.8.2010, 25.9.2010 and 27.10.2010 to produce the driving licence and other documents of the vehicle, but the complainants have failed to produce the same. The surveyor Er.Arun Kumar has assessed the net loss to the tune of Rs.3,21,661/-, who has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, as such the claim is not payable.

8. The opposite parties have taken the legal objection that the complainants are running the fleet of buses and carrying on commercial activities to earn huge profits, so the complainants are not consumer as defined under the 'Act'.

The complainants have purchased the insurance policy to get their loss indemnify in case of any mishap, not for further sale of the cover note/policy. Thus the insurance policy is purchased for the reimbursement of the loss in case of any accident. Hence the service availed by the complainant from the insurance company i.e. opposite parties does not fall under the category of the commercial transaction. Hence this objection of the opposite parties is not tenable.

9. A perusal of documents placed on file shows that the estimate loss was given to the tune of Rs.4,25,279/-, whereas the surveyor Er. Arun Kumar vide his survey report dated 14.9.2012 assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.3,21,661/-. The opposite parties have written a letter dated 5.8.2010 vide Ex.R11 to the complainants to furnish the following documents:-

“1.Complete repair bills/cash memo/cash receipts from the repairers not sent.

2.Name of the driver has been mentioned as Sh.Baljinder in conductor waybill No.CBK232 DT 27.12.2009 whereas you have produced the driving Licence of Sh.Kuldeep Singh. Please clarify.

3.Original Waybill yet to be verified by us. Pl produce the same for verification.

4.Spot Survey has not been conducted. As per our policy conditions, it has been very clearly mentioned on the covernote No.501082 dt.22.5.2009 that 25% shall be deducted from the claim amount in the absence of spot survey.

5.Please send us the enclosed discharge voucher duly completed and signed by affixing revenue stamp of Re 1 and stamp of PRTC.

6.Also please send us the original driving licence of Sh.Baljinder Singh, mentioned in the way bill.”

Er. Arun Kumar, Surveyor and Loss Assessor in his affidavit in para Nos.2 & 3 has deposed that

“The deponent physically inspected the bus and assessed the net loss to the tune of Rs.3,21,661.20/- and deponent submitted his report dt.11.6.2010 with Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., and the abovesaid report is true and correct and insurance company is only liable subject to the proof that the driver of the insured bus were having valid driving licence subject to the proof of non violation of terms and conditions of the policy. The complainant has failed to supply the required documents inspite of repeated requests and reminders of the deponent and opposite party, so the deponent was left with no option except to submit the report on the basis of documents already submitted.”

In this affidavit, the surveyor Er.Arun Kumar has specifically deposed that as the complainants have failed to supply the documents, they have to submit their report on the basis of the documents already submitted, meaning thereby that the documents already submitted by the complainant were sufficient to assess the loss to the vehicle and to pay the insurance claim.

Dr.J.L Ahuja, Sr.Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company has deposed in his affidavit Ex.R5 that

“Kuldeep Singh s/o Jaskaran Singh driver of the bus at the time of alleged accident was not holding valid and effective driving licence to drive the bus and were disqualified to have a licence in his name.”

The insurance company has assessed the loss without verifying the original driving licence to the tune of Rs.3,21,661.20/- against the estimate loss of Rs.4,22,004.25/-. Without verifying the original licence of the drivers, the opposite parties have got signed the consent letter from the complainants vide Ex.R13. In this consent letter, the complainants have agreed to take the amount of Rs.3,21,661.20/- from the insurance company. If this was the case of the insurance company that the complainants have not supplied the original driving licence, the insurance company should not have got the consent of the complainants for the amount of Rs.3,21,661.20/-. The complainants have signed the consent letter and agreed to take the payment of Rs.3,21,661.20/-. Thus they are entitled to get the amount of Rs.3,21,661.20/-. The support can be sought by the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled Sohan Lal Passi Vs. P.Sesh Reddy & Ors., 1996 SCC(5) 21 JT 1996 (6) 728.

10. Therefore in view of what has been discussed above, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint is accepted with Rs.3000/- as cost and compensation and the opposite parties are directed to pay the amount of Rs.3,21,661.20/-.

11. 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 the interest @ 9% per annum will yield on the amount of Rs.3,21,661.20/- till realization.

12. 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:-

17-10-2012 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni)

President

(Amarjeet Paul)

Member

(Sukhwinder Kaur)

Member