Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.

                                                          Complaint No. : 15.

                                                          Instituted on     : 10.01.2017.

                                                          Decided on       : 04.07.2018.

Dilbag Singh son of Sh. Umrao Singh, r/o 839, VPO Kheri Sadh, District Rohtak.

                                                          ………..Complainant.

                             Vs.

United India Insurance Company Ltd., through its Divisional Manager, Model Town, Rohtak.

……….Opposite party.

          COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.

BEFORE:  SH.RAJBIR SINGH DAHIYA, PRESIDENT.

                   SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.

Present:       Sh. Deepak Jain, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.D.N.Singhal, Advocate for opposite party.

                                      ORDER

RAJBIR SINGH DAHIYA, PRESIDENT:

1.                          Brief facts of the case are that complainant is registered  owner of vehicle bearing no.HR-69A-7271 which was duly insured with the opposite party for the period 24.07.2015 to 23.07.2016. That on 09.07.2016 when said vehicle was towing one car from Rohtak to Delhi, on the way, in saving some other car, the vehicle of the complainant got turned turtle and was damaged. That opposite party was duly intimated and surveyor was appointed by the opposite party. That complainant spent Rs.65000/- on the repair of his vehicle and submitted all the bills but the opposite party vide its letter dated 25.10.2016 had repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that there is no liability of the respondent company to pay the damages.  That the act of opposite party is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and the complainant has prayed for directing the OPs to pay Rs.65000/- alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant.

2.                          After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party. Opposite party in its reply has submitted that the Recovery van bearing No.HR-69A-7271 falling under the category of Miscellaneous & Special type of vehicles was insured with the opposite party as a routine vehicle like any other ordinary vehicle without seeking any specific extra coverage for its inherent usage limitation of overturning & consequential damage loss by incorporation of relevant IMT 47 endorsement. That the final surveyor, Sh. Sushil Kumar had assessed the loss of Rs.25728/- less salvage value of parts replaced but as per terms & conditions of policy the said loss assessed was not at all payable as the proximate cause of loss was attributed to Overturning of the vehicle while in operation as a special towing vehicle-Crane. Accordingly the claim was repudiated and the complainant was communicated vide letter dated 25.10.2016.  It is prayed that complaint may kindly be dismissed with costs.

3.                          Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7 and has closed his evidence. On the other hand ld. counsel for the OPs tendered affidavits Ex.D5 to Ex.D7, documents Ex.D1 to Ex.D4 and closed his evidence.

4.                          We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.

5.                          Perusal of the documents and averments of the parties reveals that the opposite party rejected the claim of the complainant taking the shelter of the provision of IMT-Section 47. We have perused IMT-47 clearly which, in our opinion, is of no help to the opposite party. The vehicle in question was plying on the road and it got damaged when the driver tried to save a car on the road coming from the opposite direction. So it is not a case of a vehicle being damaged during operation. Driving on a road is not an operation and does not attract IMT-47 in any manner.

6.                          In view of the above, complaint succeeds and it is directed that opposite party shall pay the claim amount as per survey report Ex.D4 amounting to Rs.25728/- less salvage Rs.1000/- i.e. to pay Rs.24728/-(Rupees twenty four thousand seven hundred twenty eight only) alongwith interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint  i.e. 10.01.2017 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. 

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

Announced in open court:

04.07.2018.

                                                          ................................................

                                                          Rajbir Singh Dahiya, President

                                                          ..........................................

                                                          Ved Pal Hooda, Member.