Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/680/2010

Vikram Singh S/o Jeet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Ravinder Sohi

15 Mar 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR AT JAGADHRI.

                                                                                                Complaint No. 680 of 2010.

                                                                                                Date of institution: 23.07.2010

                                                                                                Date of decision: 15.03.2016.

Vikram Singh aged about 32 years son of Shri Jeet Singh, resident of village Ismailpur, P.O. Devdhar, Tehsil Chhachhrauli, District Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                                                                                                                          …Complainant.

                                    Versus

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Divisional Office, Opposite Madhu Hotel, Jagadhri Road, Yamuna Nagar, through Divisional Manager.                                                                                                                                                                            …Respondent.

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT.

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

Present: Sh.  Ravinder Sohi Advocate, counsel for complainant.

              Sh. Sanjay Sharma, Advocate, counsel for respondent

 

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant Vikram Singh has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection 1986 praying therein that the respondent (hereinafter referred as OP) be directed to make the payment of Rs. 39956/- alongwith interest on account of damages to his tractor alongwith compensation and litigation expenses.

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that the complainant is a registered owner of tractor bearing registration No. HR-02S-6224(Annexure C-4) which was insured with the OP insurance company vide insurance policy No. 261700/47/2009/511 valid from 20.03.2009 to 19.03.2010 for a sum insured of Rs. 3,00,000/-( Annexure C-1). During the currency of insurance policy, on 26.01.2010 the cousin brother of complainant namely Rajbir Singh was driving the tractor for ploughing the field of complainant and in the meanwhile the tractor struck against the electric pole installed in the field from back side resulting in damage to the differential housing, bull gear etc. The complainant lodged his claim with the Op Insurance Company and informed regarding the accident and damage suffered by his tractor and all the relevant documents in original were submitted to the Op Insurance Company.  The OP Insurance Company appointed Sh. Manoj Kumar Kukreja, Surveyor and Loss Assessor, who visited the spot and surveyed the loss suffered by tractor of the complainant and estimate of loss was prepared. The complainant got his tractor repaired from Shiv Shakti Tractors on payment of Rs. 39956/- vide Bill No. 235 dated 29.01.2010. However, the claim of the complainant was not settled by the Op Insurance Company. The complainant visited the office of OP Insurance company and requested them to sanction the claim of complainant to the tune of Rs. 39956/- i.e. the actual loss suffered by the complainant but the Op Company has been putting off the matter on one pretext or the other. Ultimately, The OP Insurance company repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 20.4.2010 on the ground that the damages to the vehicle are old one and are not of accidental nature and only wear tear loss casting defects as per the report of Surveyor Mr. Manoj Kumar Kukerja. This act on the part of OP Insurance Company is wrong and illegal as the tractor actually met with accident and suffered damages.   Hence, this complaint.  

3.                     Upon notice, OP Insurance Company appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable, no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of OP as the damages to the vehicle are old one and are not of accidental nature and same are only wear and tear loss and casting defect as reported by the Surveyor Shri Manoj Kumar Kukreja and on that ground the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated. As such the present complaint being false and frivolous is liable to be dismissed and on merit it has been submitted that as per terms of the policy, risk of damage to the vehicle due to accident or theft etc. are covered to the knowledge of complainant itself. It has been further submitted that the claim is based on total falsehood and fabrication of facts because neither any accident has ever taken place with the tractor in question nor it has been damaged in any accident. Actually as per report of the Surveyor Shri Manoj Kumar Kukreja, the damages to the vehicle are old one and are not of accident nature and same are only wear and tear loss and casting defect and on the basis of the same , the claim has rightly been repudiated and lastly prayed for dismissal of complainant.

4.                     To prove the case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CX and documents such as Photo copy of insurance policy as Annexure C-1, Photo copy of Bill issued by Shiv Shakti Tractors as Annexure C-2, Photo copy of driving license of Rajbir Singh as Annexure C-3, Photo copy of RC as Annexure C-4, Photographs of tractor as well as parts as Annexure C-5 to C-11 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OP Insurance Company tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. R.S.Kalra, Divisional Manager, OIC as Annexure RW/A and documents such as Photo copy of Surveyor report dated 30.01.2010 as annexure R-1, Photo copy of Photographs alongwith photo copy of driving license, Photo copy of claim form as Annexure R-2, Photo copy of claim scrutiny form as Annexure R-3, Photo copy of claim repudiation letter as Annexure R-4 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP Insurance company.

6.                     We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely and carefully. The counsel for the complainant reiterated the averments mentioned in the complaint and prayed for its acceptance whereas the counsel for OP reiterated the averments made in the reply and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

7.                     It is not disputed that the complainant is registered owner of tractor bearing registration no. HR-02S-6224 (copy of R.C. Annexure C-4) which was insured with the OP Insurance Company vides its policy No. 261700/47/2009/511 valid from 20.03.2009 to 19.03.2010 (Annexure C-1). It is also not disputed that on intimation a surveyor was deputed by the OP Insurance Company who submitted his report dated 30.01.2010 (Annexure R-1).

8.                     The only plea of OP Insurance Company is that the complainant has misrepresented the facts in respect of alleged accident and damages observed in the tractor were not accidental in nature and quite not in accordance with the history of said accident. Learned counsel for the OP argued that the investigator has categorically pointed out that the cause of accident narrated in claim form does not match with the nature and extent of damage present. According to the claim form insured stated that while driving due to heavy fog, driver could not see the electric pole and insured tractor hit into it. Insured also told that cracks on the differential housing were already existing but due to impact from back side those cracks got extended whereas the damages to the vehicle are old one and are not of accidental nature and only wear tear loss and casting defects. Learned counsel for the OPs Insurance Company further argued that the damages were not fresh in nature and there was no nexus between the alleged accident and resultant loss. Lastly, argued that as per terms and conditions of the Insurance policy alleged loss of the tractor in question was not covered under the policy hence the claim of the complainant has been rightly repudiated vide letter dated 30.01.2010 Annexure R-4.

9.                     On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant argued at length that genuine claim of the complainant has been wrongly repudiated by Insurance Company and tried his best to mould the fact that due to accident many parts of the tractor were damaged but the contention of the complainant counsel is not tenable because normally, documents do not speak lie but men may do so, as complainant has miserably failed to prove any accident by way of cogent documentary evidence i.e. DDR or FIR or even any MLR in respect of injuries (if any) sustained in accident on 26.01.2010. Even, the complainant neither filed affidavit of his cousin brother Rajbir Singh who was driving the tractor in question at the time of alleged accident nor has filed any spot photographs of the alleged accident. We have minutely perused the bills of repairs (Annexure C-2) and surveyor report (Annexure R-1), from which it is evident that the damages were only in differential housing (Load Bearing point” where trailer hook attached) of the tractor in question which were not accidental in nature and quite not in accordance with the history of alleged accident. Complainant failed to file any mechanic/expert report to controvert the version of the Insurance Company, hence, the plea of the OP Insurance Company and opinion of the surveyor seems reasonable. Onus to prove the accidental damages was upon the complainant but he has totally failed to do. Case law referred by the counsel for the complainant titled as National Insurance Company Limited & Another Versus Munni Lal Yadav, 2000(2) CPC page 715 (U.P) is not disputed but applicable to the facts of the present case as in that case insured jeep was met with an accident and FIR was also lodged. Some passengers had received injuries but the insurance company repudiated the claim on the ground of overloading of the passengers in the said jeep but in the present case alleged damages has been claimed in respect of tractor just meant for agriculture purpose and carrying only the produce of the agriculture but in the area of Yamuna Nagar/ Jagadhri most of the tractor owners are using their tractors for carrying overloaded sugarcane as well as popular. 

10                    After going through the above noted circumstances, terms and conditions, as the complainant has totally failed to prove that tractor in question met with accident and the damages were due to accident external means and further failed to file any mechanic/expert report that the damages were not due to wears and tears, overloading, we are of the considered view that the complainant has miserably failed to prove his case. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP Insurance Company and the claim of the complainant has rightly been repudiated by the OP Insurance Company vide letter dated 20.4.2010 (Annexure R-4.)

11                    Resultantly, we find no merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court. 15.03.2016.          

                                                                                    (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                    PRESIDENT

 

                                                                                     

                                    (S.C.SHARMA )

                                     MEMBER