Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/379/2013

Ravinder Singh S/o Saran Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

United India Insurance Co.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Ajay Deep Singh

05 Sep 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA   NAGAR.

 

                                                               Complaint No. 379 of 2013.

                                                               Date of institution: 17.05.2013.

                                                               Date of decision: 05.09.2017.

 

 

Ravinder Singh aged about 40 years, son of Sarna Singh, C/o Dhillon Roadways Grain Market, Ambala Cantt.

 

                                                                                                          …Complainant.

                     Versus

1. United India Insurance co. Ltd. through its Manager, Yamuna Nagar.
2. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. through its Manager, Panchkula, SCO No.836, NAC Mani Majra, Panchkula.

       

         …. Respondents.

                  

BEFORE    SH. SATPAL, PRESIDENT

                   SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

                   SMT. VEENA RANI SHEOKAND, MEMBER.          

 

Present:       Sh. Ajay deep Singh, Advocate, for complainant.   

                    Sh. Rajiv Gupta, Advocate, counsel for OPs.

 

 

ORDER     (SATPAL, PRESIDENT)

 

1.                Complainant Ravinder Singh has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 as amended up to date.(hereinafter  the respondents shall be referred as OPs). 

2.                Brief facts of the complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that complainant had taken a policy from the OP No.1 bearing No.1103013110P000263192 for a period from 14.04.2010 to 13.04.2011. The complainant was using the said truck for transporting oil to military in Ladakh and as per the rules, the said oil tanker which supply to the military camp Ladakh do not work in some other place and remain stand-still during winter season. Due to this reason the said truck of the complainant bearing No.HR01-GA-0589 and Engine No.697D21GSQ132796 was standing on one Petrol Pump at Jagadhri. Thereafter, on 08.04.2011, when the truck of the complainant was standing at the petrol pump of one Sanjay Aggarwal son of Dhani Ram on Jagadhri-Ambala Road and in the said night when the truck was parked due to one short circuit in the cabin, the whole truck caught fire and was completely damaged. Thereafter, the Fire Brigade came at the spot in the night and controlled the fire and thereafter a DDR bearing No. 21-A dated 09.04.2011 was also registered at PS City, Jagadhri. Thereafter, the complainant immediately sent an intimation to the OP No.1 regarding the fire which damaged the truck while standing and thereafter report regarding total loss was also prepared by the Surveyor.  Thereafter, the complainant also collected one certificate from the Fire Officer, Yamuna Nagar dated 12.04.2011 regarding catching of fire by the truck and deposited the same in the office of the OP No.1 and 2. Thereafter, the surveyor was appointed by the concerned office and as per the report submitted by the said Surveyor, the loss was assessed to the tune of Rs.2,88,315/-. The complainant signed the relevant documents as per the instructions of the OP No.1 and 2 and at the time of signing the said documents, the OP No.1 assured the complainant that his assessed loss value will be released to him as soon as possible. But, no such payment for the loss was ever made to the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant many times approached the OPs and requested them to release the loss value of the vehicle as the OP No.1 is a Nationalized Agency, However, the OP always used to linger on the matter on one pretext or the other. Thereafter, the complainant sent one Registered AD Legal notice dated 20.04.2012 to the OPs requesting them to make the payment. Thereafter, the complainant received one letter dated 26.02.2013 whereby the OP has repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that DL was not original even though no such copy of the fake report was ever forwarded to the complainant. Lastly, prayed for directing the OPs to pay Rs.2,88,315/- for the loss caused due to fire along with interest and also to pay compensation and litigation expenses. Hence, this complaint.

3.                Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed their written statement taking some preliminary objections such as the present complaint is not maintainable; there is no negligence or deficiency in services on the part of the OPs company. In this case, an intimation was received by the OP Company that one Oil Tanker bearing Regd. No.HR01-GA-0589, insured with the OP company in the name of complainant, has caught fire in its cabin in the intervening night of 8/9^th April, 2011 and on receipt of the said intimation, the OPs company immediately deputed Shri Amit Sharma, an independent surveyor and loss assessor to conduct the spot survey and to note down the damage to the vehicle on 09.04.2011 itself and noted down the damages to the tanker/truck in question and submitted his report dated 13.04.2011 to the OPs company. The insured was desired by the OP Company to submit necessary documents including DL of its driver, route permit, fitness certificate etc. The insured submitted copy of DL of the driver of the said tanker i.e. of Shri Amarjit Singh, bearing No. 1883/96F originally issued by LA MUZZAFAPUR (BIHAR). On receipt of spot surveyor’s report the OP company further deputed Shri Rajesh Wadhawan, an independent surveyor and loss assessor to conduct the final survey and to assess the loss if any to the vehicle in question. The said surveyor conducted the final survey of the damaged vehicle on 13.04.2011 and on further dates at M/s FRIEND MOTOR WORKS, AMBALA CITY itself. The insured was contacted and all the damages were thoroughly inspected and noted by the said surveyor and the estimate of the repairer was taken into consideration. The said surveyor, vide his report dated 22.10.2011, assessed the net loss on total Loss basis to the tune of Rs.1,23,000/-. Subject to the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. It was pointed out by the surveyor that the oil tander was saved which valued around Rs.50,000/- and the salvage of burnt parts was also assessed as Rs.50,000/-. In consultation /discussion with the insured, the assessment was further assessed on cash loss basis vide report of the said surveyor dated 01.02.2013 to the tune of Rs.1,06,786.99/- on receipt of this report, the DL of the driver Shri Amarjeet Singh was got verified from LA MUZZAFARPUR which was found to be take, not issued by the said authority and after taking into account the said DL verification report, it was found by the OPs company that the insured violated the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy by handing over the vehicle to a person who was not holding a valid and effective DL at the time of alleged accident. Rest contents of the complaint were controverted and reiterated the stand taken in the preliminary objection and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                In support of his case, the learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of Shri Ravinder Singh as Annexure CW/A and documents as Annexure C1 to C8 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.                On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Shri Ajay Sareen, Assistant Manager, UIIC as Annexure RA and another affidavit of Shri Rajesh Wadhawan, Surveyor and Loss Assessor as Annexure RB and documents as Annexure R1 to R13 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.

6.                We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and has gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely and carefully.

7.                Learned counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant was owner of truck bearing No. HR01-GA-0589 and the said truck was insured with the OP company. Learned counsel for the complainant further argued that on 08.04.2014 when the said truck was parked at the Petrol Pump in Jagadhri due to short circuit in the cabin, the truck caught fire and was completely damaged. An intimation was also given to the Fire Brigade as well as to the Police and DDR was also registered at PS City Jagadhri. Intimation was also given to the Insurance Company.  And thereafter, the Surveyor was appointed and has assessed a loss to the tune of Rs.2,88,315/- but the OP company vide letter dated 26.02.2013 had repudiated the claim of the complainant on the false and frivolous ground i.e. DL was not original and lastly prayed for acceptance of the complaint. The learned counsel for the complainant also referred the case law titled as “National Insurance Company Vs. Sheela Devi, 2008(2) CPR 94, decided by Hon’ble State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Himachal Pradesh in which it has been held that :

A.      Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Sections 14 and 15- Insurance Claim- Plea of fake driving licence- As per surveyor report, vehicle in question was stationary at the time of accident- Held, plea of fake driving Licence wholly irrelevant, as vehicle was not moving so as to show any nexus between the fake licence and causing of accident due to it- Claim rightly allowed- Appeal dismissed 2002(VI) SCC 426 – Followed.

B.      Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 14 Fake Driving Licence- Renewal of- As a question of law, that what is fake, it cannot be validated by any subsequent act.

 

8.                On the other hand learned counsel for the OPs argued at length that the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated because the DL of the driver was got verified from the Licensing Authority Muzzffarpur (Bihar) which was found to be fake and as such the complainant violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy by handing over the vehicle to a person who was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of alleged accident and prayed for dismissal of the compliant qua the OPs.

8.                After hearing the counsel for both the parties and going through the record placed on file, a foremost question which arises before us is whether the Insurance company can repudiate a claim made by the owner of the vehicle which is duly insured with the company, solely on the ground that the driver of the vehicle who had nothing to do with the accident,  did not hold a valid licence? It is admitted fact that when the truck caught fire, at that time the said truck was insured with the OPs Company for a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- which is clear from the Annexure C1. As per report of Surveyor (Annexure R1 and R3), when the truck caught fire, the truck in question was standing at the Petrol Pump. Section 149 (2) (a) (ii) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 empowers the insurance company to repudiate a claim wherein the vehicle is damaged due to an accident in which the driver of the vehicle does not hold a valid driving licence. It does not empower the insurance company to repudiate a claim for damages which has occurred due to acts which has no concerned with the driver, i.e. damages occurred due to reasons other than the act of the driver. In the instant case, it is the case of the parties that fire in question which caused damaged to the vehicle occurred due to the mechanical failure/short circuit and not due to any fault or act or omission of the driver. Therefore, in our considered opinion, Insurance company should not have repudiated the claim of the complainant on the false and frivolous ground because at the time of occurrence of fire the truck in question was standing at Petrol pump.  It is a admitted fact, that the truck in question was insured with the OP company for Insured Declared Value (IDV) to the tune of Rs.2,25,000/- but the surveyor assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 1,06,786.99/- on account of damages. It is a settled law that credence should be given to the surveyor report being an authentic document as only the surveyor is best person to assess the loss ( If any).`

9.                Resultantly, in the circumstances noted above and case law referred by the counsel for the complainant, we partly allow the present complaint of the complainant and direct the OPs Insurance Company to comply with the following directions within a period of 30 days from the receipt of the copy of this order: -

1. To pay Rs.1,06,786.99/- to the complainant i.e. the loss assessed by the Surveyor along with interest @ 7% per annum from filing of the complaint till its realization.
2. To pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, harassment.
3. And also to pay Rs.3300/- on account of litigation expenses.

 

Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced in open Court:

Dated 05.09.2017

 

                                                     (SATPAL)

                                                     PRESIDENT

                                                     D.C.D.R.F.YAMUNA NAGAR

                                                     AT JAGADHRI

 

 

 

(VEENA RANI SHEOKAND)         (S.C.SHARMA)

MEMBER                                         MEMBER