Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 450
Instituted on : 05.09.2019
Decided on : 15.04.2024.
Jagdish age 50 years, son of Sh. Sube Singh R/o village Chhappar District Jhajjar.
..............Complainant.
Vs.
United India Insurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office 323/21, 2nd floor, Jawahar Market, Delhi Road, Opp.,D-Park Rohtak through its Divisional Manager.
……….Opposite party.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER
Present: Sh.HarishOhlan, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.R.K.Bhardwaj, Advocate for the opposite party.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case as per complainant are that he is registered owner of vehicle No.NL02Q-5040 and the complainant got the same insured from the opposite party for the period from 11.10.2017 to 10.10.2018 vide policy no.1112003117P109848987. The said vehicle met with an accident on 20.07.2018 and was completely damaged. The complainant informed the opposite party and submitted the claim with the opposite party. The complainant incurred expenses of Rs.5 lacs on the repair of said vehicle. Complainant completed all the formalities as required by the opposite party but the claim amount has not been paid by the opposite party till today. Opposite party vide its letter dated 30.04.2019 has closed the claim on the ground that the vehicle is in the name of Jagdish whereas bill of tipping cylinder is in the name of R.S.Builders and there was huge overloading. It is further submitted that the complainant is proprietor of R.S.Building Material Suppliers and as such bill was in the name of R.S. building material supplier. Hence the act of opposite party of repudiating the genuine claim of the complainant on false grounds is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to disburse an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of accident till the date of payment and to pay Rs.50,000/- on account of harassment as well as 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 as per surveyor report and GR thevehicle was loaded with 31923 kgs. of stone dust whereas the loading capacity as per the RC is 21000 kgs. There is a huge overloading and breakage of frame chassis was due to overloading only and not broken by unloading, which is not covered under policy terms and conditions, Thus there was a violation of terms and conditions of the policy therefore the insurance company has no liability to pay the said claim. According to the said R.C. vehicle is in the name of Mr. Jagdish whereas bill of Tipping cylinder is in the name of R.S.Builders with their GSTIN No. and till date no authentic documents have been submitted by the complainant. The final survey was conducted by Sh. Rajesh Chhabra surveyor and loss assessor was appointed in this case who assessed the net loss of Rs.176500/-. The complainant did not produce required documents and there is violation of terms and conditions of the policy and no claim was rightly passed on dated 30.04.2019. There is no deficiency in service on the party of insurance company. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. Ld. Counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C16 and has closed his evidence on 13.04.2022. Ld. counsel for the opposite party has tendered affidavits Ex.RW1/A & Ex. RW2/B and documents Ex.R1 to Ex. R6 and has closed his evidence on 08.12.2022.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. In the present case claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the insurance company vide letter dated 30.04.2019 Ex.C12 after taking the following objections:
(i) Vehicle is in the name of Mr. Jagdish whereas bill of tipping cylinder is in the name of R.S.Builders with their GSTIN No. and till date no authentic documents have been submitted by the complainant.
(ii) As per surveyor remarks and GR produced by the complainant, the vehicle was loaded with 31923 kgs. of stone dust whereas the loading capacity as per the RC is 21000 kgs. There is a huge overloading only and breakage of frame chassis was due to overloading only and not broken by unloading, which is not covered under policy terms and conditions.
Regarding first objection the respondent insurance company placed on record a bill Ex.R6. Perusal of this document shows that the bill was issued in the name of R.S.Building Material Suppliers. On the other hand to prove the fact that this part was installed in the complainant’s vehicle he has placed on record two documents Ex.C9 and Ex.C10. These are the ‘registration certificate’ and detail of ‘additional place of business’. The perusal of these documents shows that the legal name of the owner of the vehicle is JagsdishChander and Trade Name is mentioned as R.S. Building Material Suppliers. Meaning thereby the bill Ex.R6 is correctly issued in the name of R.S.Building Material suppliers. So the insurance company has wrongly rejected the bill Ex.R6. Regarding the second objection the respondent insurance company took the plea that the vehicle was overloaded at the time ofaccident. We have minutely perused the registration certificate, insurance policy and survey report. As per these documents authorisedvehicle weight was 31000 kg. Moreover in the registration certificate, the gross vehicle weight is mentioned as 35000kg. The copy of registration certificate is placed on record as Ex.C11. This document was issued by the registration authority on dated 06.10.2018.. The insurance company failed to place on record any document to prove the fact that the gross vehicle weight should not be more than 21000kg. As per No claim letter Ex.R5, the loading capacity was 21000kg. whereasat the time of accident vehicle was loaded with 31923 kg. But the insurance company failed to place on record any document to prove this fact that the vehicle load at the time of accident was 31923 kg. No documentary evidence is placed on record. Respondent failed to justify the grounds taken by it in the ‘No Claim Letter’. The vehicle was not overloaded at the time of accident. Hence as per our opinion, the claim has been wrongly repudiated by the opposite party. The complainant is entitled for the repair charges including the bill of Rs.75000/- as per terms and conditions of the policy. As per the survey report surveyor has assessed the total liability of the insurance company as Rs.241000/- whereas the insurance company submitted in his written statement as well as in the affidavit that surveyor Sh. Rajesh Chhabra has assessed the loss on net of salvage basis as Rs.176500/-. We have minutely perused the survey report. In fact the surveyor has considered the bill Ex.R6amounting to Rs.75000/- at the time of assessment of the loss and he came into the conclusion that liability of the insurance company comes to Rs.241000/-. After considering the terms and conditions of the policy and bills the insurance company deducted this amount as mentioned in the bill Ex.R6 and came into the conclusion that the total liability of the insurance company comes to Rs.176500/- After perusal of documents we came into the conclusion that Ex.R6 should be considered and in this way as per surveyor liability comes to Rs.241000/-. Perusal of survey report also reveals that the surveyor has not allowed the labour charges under the head (1) Denting/alignment & repair of Chassis incl. new piece & plate welding. The surveyor has not specifically mentioned that why he disallowed the estimated cost under this head amounting to Rs.73000/-. As per our opinion the complainant is also entitled for Rs.60000/- under this head after deducting the salvage value amounting to Rs.13000/-. Hence the total liability of company comes to Rs.301000/-(Rs.241000/- + Rs.60000/-).
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party to pay Rs.301000/-(Rupees three lac and one thousand only) alongiwth interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 05.09.2019 till its realisation and also to pay a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and 5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.
Announced in open court:
15.04.2024.
.....................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
TriptiPannu, Member.
……………………………….
Vijender Singh, Member
