Haryana

StateCommission

A/158/2015

PRIYANKA RANI - Complainant(s)

Versus

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. - Opp.Party(s)

R.S.RANA

08 Sep 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      158 of 2015

Date of Institution:      18.02.2015

Date of Decision :      08.09.2015

 

Priyanka Rani wife of late Sh. Naresh Kumar, Resident of House No.349, Ward No.3, V.P.O. Jhansa, District Kurukshetra.

                                      Appellant-Complainant

Versus

 

1.      United India Insurance Company Limited, Pehowa Road, Kaithal, Tehsil and District Kaithal, through its Branch Manager.

 

2.      United India Insurance Company Limited, Karnal, through its Branch Manager.

                                      Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                                                                                                              

Present:               Shri Rajinder Singh Rana, Advocate for appellant.

Shri Deepak Chaudhary, Advocate appearing on behalf of Shri R.C. Gupta, Advocate for respondents.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

This complainant’s appeal has been preferred against the order dated January 15^th, 2015, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short ‘District Forum’), Kurukshetra, whereby complaint filed by her was dismissed.

2.      Priyanka Rani-complainant-appellant, got her vehicle (Tanker) bearing registration No.HR-37-A-4068 insured with United India Insurance Company Limited (for short ‘the Insurance Company’)-Opposite Parties, for Rs.6.00 lacs from September 8^th, 2011 to September 7^th, 2012, vide Insurance Policy Exhibit R-2. On August 30^th, 2012, the above said tanker met with an accident near Miri Piri Hospital, G.T. Road, Shahabad Markand, District Kurukshetra and turned turtle. Due to the accident, the diesel/petrol loaded in the tanker leaked. The tanker was also damaged. Daily Diary Report No.19 dated 31.08.2012 was recorded in Police Station, City Shahabad. On being informed, the Insurance Company appointed surveyor who inspected the spot and assessed the loss at Rs.2,45,000/-. The complainant deposited Rs.2,96,537/- with the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (for short ‘BPCL’) on September 17^th, 2012. The Insurance Company paid Rs.32,930/- only to the complainant for OD claim for damage to tanker, however, did not pay the balance amount of Rs.3,01,358.22, that is, Rs.2,96,536.89 for loss of petrol/diesel and Rs.4821.33 as costs of transportation. The complainant approached the Insurance Company to pay the balance amount but the  Insurance Company repudiated complainant’s claim vide letter (Annexure-A) dated 17^th, April, 2013, stating as under:-

“With reference to the above, we wish to inform you that as per DDR No. 19 dt.31.8.2012 and as per your intimation there is no negligence and criminal act on the part of the driver of the insured vehicle so the claim is not admissible as per the policy terms and conditions under carriers legal liability policy.”

 She filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

3.      The Opposite Parties-Insurance Company, contested the complaint by filing reply. It was stated that the Insurance Policy was issued from Kaithal whereas the complaint was filed at Kurukshetra, so the complaint was not maintainable. It was further stated that the vehicle was being used for commercial purpose and therefore it was not a consumer dispute. No OD claim was paid to the complainant as the tanker was not insured with the opposite parties. Denying the averments made in the complaint, it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

4.      On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence available on the record, the District Forum dismissed the complaint.

5.      The only short ground on which the claim was repudiated by the Insurance Company in view of ‘Carrier’s Legal Liability Policy’ (page 85 Exhibit R-2) which reads as under:-

“NOW THIS POLICY WITNESSETH that during the currency of this policy and any further period(s) for which it may be in force, subject to limits, terms, provisions, exclusions, exceptions and conditions contained herein or endorsed hereon or otherwise expressed hereon, the Company hereby agrees to indemnify the Insured against his legal liability for actual physical loss of or damage to goods or merchandise directly caused by the and/or accident to the vehicle registered under No.HR-37A-4068 whilst such goods or merchandise are actually transported in the said vehicle provided that the fire or accident has arisen on account of negligence or criminal act of his servants.”

 6.     The Insurance Company does not dispute that the vehicle bearing registration No.HR-37-A-4068, was insured covering risk of Petrol, diesel, kerosene and such like goods being transported. To support that the truck met with the accident, the complainant has placed on the file DDR No.19 dated 31.08.2012, on the file, invoice dated 30.08.2012 issued by the BPCL for transporting 4 KL MS & 8 KL HSD, total valuing Rs.5,81,384/-.  The complainant has also placed on the file, letter dated 7.9.2012 issued by BPCL working out the loss of MS and HSD diesel as under:-

“1.      Product cost (MS)-2890 Ltrs. @ Rs.67863.54 per KL=196125.63

 2.      Product cost (HSD)- 2567 Ltrs @ Rs.39116.19 per KL=100411.26

Rs.296536.89

 3.      Cost of Transportation                                                             4821.33

Rs.=4821.33”

7.      The complainant has also placed on the file draft (Annexure-A) dated 17.09.2012 issued by Central Bank of India favouring BPCL for Rs.2,96,537/- towards the amount of loss assessed by BPCL paid by complainant. Thus, it stands proved on the file that the loss suffered was of Rs.2,96,536.89, rounded figure, Rs.2,96,537/-, which amount was paid by the complainant to the consignor- BPCL. The only ground of repudiation was that the loss should occur on account of negligence or criminal act of the servants of the owner/insured. The manner of accident mentioned in the DDR is that on the relevant date, that is, 31.08.2012, the driver while carrying the petroleum products, was proceeding from Panipat Depot to its destination and at about 4.45 P.M., a Chevrolet Tavera vehicle bearing registration No.HR-65-1631, was going ahead of the vehicle when some animal came in front and the driver of Tavera vehicle applied sudden brakes. The tanker driver also applied sudden brakes and it being loaded with petroleum products, fell in the road side ditches.  Certainly driver of tanker was at high speed and was not maintaining safe and proper distance. Had he been maintaining safe distance and driving at controllable speed, the accident could have been avoided. This was certainly an act of negligence and criminal offence on the part of driver while driving tanker rashly and negligently. Thus, claim of the complainant was covered under the policy. The District Forum fell in error in dismissing the complaint.

8.      In view of the above, the appeal is accepted, the impugned order is set aside and by allowing the complaint, the Insurance Company is directed to pay Rs.2,96,537/- to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing complaint till its realization.

 

Announced 08.09.2015

(Urvashi Agnihotri) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL