Haryana

Kaithal

24/21

Ram Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

United India Insurance Co - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Satish Garg

06 Oct 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.24/2021.

                                                     Date of institution: 29.01.2021.

                                                     Date of decision:06.10.2023.

Ram Kumar S/o Hari Kesh r/o near Malka Darwaja, V.P.O. Siwan, Distt. Kaithal.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

United India Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Office: Karnal Road, Opposite I.G.College, Kaithal through its Branch Manager.

….OP.

        Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

CORAM:     SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

                SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.

       

Present:     Sh. Satish Garg, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                Sh. M.R.Miglani, Advocate for the OP.

               

ORDER

NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT

        Ram Kumar-Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the OP.

2.             In nutshell, the facts of present case are that the complainant got insured his truck bearing registration No.HR64-A-5608 with the OP vide GCV Public Carrier other than 3 wheeler package policy bearing No.1107053119P102701680 valid for the period 28.05.2019 to 27.05.2020 and paid Rs.55,224/- as premium of said policy.  On 12.11.2019, the above-said truck of complainant met with a road-side accident near Sarhind, Punjab.  The complainant incurred the amount of Rs.3,27,860/- on its repair.  The complainant got lodged the claim with the OP and submitted all the necessary documents as required by the OP but the OP repudiated the claim of complainant vide letter dt. 06.07.2020 on the ground that “Permit of the vehicle was not valid as on date of accident”.  The complainant filed a complaint before this Commission regarding route permit of above-said truck, in which RTA, Kaithal admitted that “the route permit issued by the department of above-said truck is valid upto 18.03.2019 and the validity of N.P.Authorization is 19.03.2019 to 13.03.2020 and the basic goods permit is valid upto 13.03.2020”.  The said complaint was disposed of by this Commission vide its order dt. 06.10.2020.  After the said order, the complainant supplied all relevant documents and order of this Commission mentioned above and requested to pay the claim amount but every time, the OP lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OP and prayed for acceptance of complaint.     

3.            Upon notice, the OP appeared before this Commission and contested the complaint by filing their written version raising preliminary objections that the complainant is stopped by his own act and conduct.  The complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Commission.  Real facts are that the answering OP had appointed Sh. Sukhbir Bibian, Independent Investigator for verification of route permit which has been supplied by the complainant from the issuing authority Secretary-cum-RTA, Kaithal.  As per verification report of RTA, Kaithal, route permit was issued in the year 2018 and nation permit was valid from 13.03.2020 to 29.05.2020.  So, at the time of alleged loss of complainant, route permit was not valid at the time of alleged loss.  The complainant has willfully violated the terms and conditions of insurance policy.  So, the OP has already repudiated the claim of complainant.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are rebutted and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.             To prove his case, the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C31 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

5.             On the other hand, the OP tendered into evidence affidavits Ex.RW1/A, Ex.RW2/A alongwith documents Annexure-R1 to Annexure-R3 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

6.             We have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.

7.             Ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant got insured his truck bearing registration No.HR64-A-5608 with the OP vide GCV Public Carrier other than 3 wheeler package policy bearing No.1107053119P102701680 valid for the period 28.05.2019 to 27.05.2020 and paid Rs.55,224/- as premium of said policy.  On 12.11.2019, the above-said truck of complainant met with a road-side accident near Sarhind, Punjab.  The complainant incurred the amount of Rs.3,27,860/- on its repair.  The complainant got lodged the claim with the OP and submitted all the necessary documents as required by the OP but the OP repudiated the claim of complainant vide letter dt. 06.07.2020 on the ground that “Permit of the vehicle was not valid as on date of accident”.  The complainant filed a complaint before this Commission regarding route permit of above-said truck, in which RTA, Kaithal admitted that “the route permit issued by the department of above-said truck is valid upto 18.03.2019 and the validity of N.P.Authorization is 19.03.2019 to 13.03.2020 and the basic goods permit is valid upto 13.03.2020”.  The said complaint was disposed of by this Commission vide its order dt. 06.10.2020.  After the said order, the complainant supplied all relevant documents and order of this Commission mentioned above and requested to pay the claim amount but every time, the OP lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OP.    

8.             On the other hand, ld. counsel for the OP has argued that OP had appointed Sh. Sukhbir Bibian, Independent Investigator for verification of route permit which has been supplied by the complainant from the issuing authority Secretary-cum-RTA, Kaithal.  It is further argued that as per verification report of RTA, Kaithal, route permit was issued in the year 2018 and nation permit was valid from 13.03.2020 to 29.05.2020.  So, at the time of alleged loss of complainant, route permit was not valid at the time of alleged loss.  Ld. counsel for the OP has placed reliance upon the case law titled as Shiv Villas Resorts Pvt. Ltd. Vs. UII 2018(1) CLT 508 decided by Hon’ble National Commission; UII Vs. Deen Dayal 2009(2) CPC 133 decided by Hon’ble National Commission and NIA Vs. M/s. Shivalik Tube Pvt. Ltd. 2020(1) CLT 11 decided by Hon’ble National Commission.

9.             The OP has taken the objection that the route permit of the vehicle was not valid at the time of accident.  Ld. counsel for the OP has vehemently contended that in the earlier complaint bearing No.257 decided by this Commission on 06.10.2020, the complainant had not made the OP-Insurance Company as party and in collusion with R.T.A., Kaithal made the statement on 06.10.2020 as per Annexure-C7.  He has further contended that it is not clear that the route permit was valid or not.  To rebut the said contention of OP, ld. counsel for the complainant has drawn our attention towards Authorization Certificate of N.P. (Goods) as per Annexure-C4, wherein it is clearly mentioned that “This authorization is issued on 19.03.2019 and valid throughout the territory of India upto 13.03.2020”.  During the course of arguments, ld. counsel for the complainant has also placed on file copy of reply which was filed in earlier complaint case bearing No.257, which is Mark-A on the file and in para No.5 of said reply on merits, it is specifically mentioned that “There is no deficiency on the respondent as the respondents have already issued route permit to the complainant in compliance of fees deposited by complainant of Rs.16,500/- on dated 19.03.2019 and this authorization has been issued on 19.03.2019 which is valid throughout the territory of India upto 13.03.2020”.  So, from the said reply as per Mark-A, Authorization Certificate of N.P. (Goods) as per Annexure-C4 and copy of order dt. 06.10.2020 as per Annexure-C7, it is clear that N.P. Authorization/route permit was valid w.e.f. 19.03.2019 to 13.03.2020. The another contention of ld. counsel for the OP is that the surveyor has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.1,28,400/-.  The surveyor's report is not the last and final word. It is not that sacrosanct that it cannot be departed from; it is not conclusive. The approved surveyor's report may be basis or foundation for settlement of a claim by the insurer in respect of the loss suffered by the insured but surely such report is neither binding upon the insurer nor insured.  In this regard, we can rely upon the judgment titled as New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pardeep Kumar, date of decision: 09.04.2009 bearing Civil Appeal No.3253 of 2002 decided by Hon’ble Apex Court.  The authorities submitted by ld. counsel for the OP are not disputed but the same are not applicable to the facts of instant case.  Hence, we are of the considered view that the OP has wrongly repudiated the claim of complainant and there is deficiency in service on the part of OP.  The complainant has claimed the amount of Rs.3,27,860/- and has placed on file repair bills as per Annexure-C22 to Annexure-C31 in this regard, so, the complainant is entitled for the amount of Rs.3,27,860/-.

10.            Thus, as a sequel of aforesaid discussion, we direct the OP to pay the amount of Rs.3,27,860/- to the complainant within 45 days from today, failing which, the aforesaid amount shall carry interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of this order till its realization.  The OP is further directed to pay the amount of Rs.5,000/- as compensation on account of physical harassment and mental agony as–well-as Rs.5,000/- as litigation charges.  Hence, the present complaint is accepted accordingly.      

11.            In default of compliance of this order, proceedings against OP shall be initiated under Section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as non-compliance of court order shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month, but which may extend to three years, or with fine, which shall not be less than twenty five thousand rupees, but which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.     

Announced in open court:

Dt.:06.10.2023.

                                                                (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.