BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.130 of 2020

      Date of Instt. 24.02.2020

      Date of Decision: 09.12.2022

M/s Salsun Steel Tanda Road, Opp. Hanuman Mandir, Jalandhar through its proprietor Pankaj Kumar Gupta s/o Rakesh Kumar Gupta.

..........Complainant

Versus

The Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 19 G. T. Road, Jalandhar.

….….. Opposite Party

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj             (President)

                   Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon       (Member)                                

Present:       Sh. S. S. Turna, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.

                   Sh. Vinayak Sekhri, Adv. Counsel for OP.

Order

Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)

1.                The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that the complainant is owner of Tata Truck No.PB08-CX-8045 M-2005, which was duly insured with the OP company, vide insurance policy No.2005003118P1013300857, which is valid upto 25.04.2019. The truck faced an accident on 04.09.2018 when it is going to Gagret (Himachal Pradesh) from Jalandhar near Chohal & due to loss a claim was lodged with the OP company vide bearing No.20050033118C050257001001, which was duly investigated by the OPs surveyors and ultimately OP company without any reason repudiated the claim of the complainant company by taking a false plea, which is not applicable to the case of the complainant company. The OP took a false plea that on the date of loss, Regd. Laden weigh and permit Laden weight of the vehicle was 16,200 kg and truck was loaded with 1107 kg of scrab against the permissible limit of 9200 kg. It means it was overloaded by 20.326% as per our head office circle no.Motor:ODCIR02: 18 dated 22.06.2018 overloaded beyond 15 GVM of the vehicle claim is to be repudiated. In that letter, it is also mentioned that original transport authority Jalandhar confirmed that on 09.01.2019, the Regd. Laden weight of the truck was changed from 16200 kg to 18500 kg, which is not valid on the date of loss i.e. 04.09.2018. In fact, ministry of road transport and highways, government of India, New Delhi increased the weight vide letter dated 07.08.2018, which was communicated to all the Secretary Regional Transport Authorities, Punjab Raj vide letter no.113331 to 113341 dated 10.08.2018 and increased the weight from 16200 kg to 18500 kg and this circulation is prior to date of loss i.e. 04.09.2018 and valid one and company having full knowledge regarding the change in the weight from 16200 kg to 18500 kg wrongly repudiated the claim of the complainant. The truck bearing PB08-CX-8045 having a valid Goods Carriage Permit for hire and rewards. Said truck is also having a certificate of fitness and having paid all the taxes with the Regional Authority Jalandhar. The Op without any reason repudiated the claim of the complainant without any reason whereas as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, OP is liable to pay Rs.1,75,000/- of the cost of repair, but in the present case, the OP failed to pay the compensation and wrongly repudiated the claim of the complainant. The claimant approached the Op for claim the compensation of the repair of truck and loss of the truck as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy for which the OP is legally liable to pay the same. The complainant filed all the documents with the OP, which was necessary for the disposal of the claim, however OP without following any procedure, wrongly repudiated the claim of the complainant and after the repudiation of the claim claimant served a legal notice to the OP by way of regd. Cover, but all in vain and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OP be directed to pass an award of Rs.1,75,000/- as compensation of loss alongwith Rs.1,00,000/- for illegal harassment and mental agony and Rs.50,000/- as litigation expenses alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of accident/lodging the claim with the OP.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OP, who filed reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that there is breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy by the insured and as such, complaint of the complainant is not maintainable against the OP. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP and as such, complaint of the complainant deserves dismissal. No cause of action has accrued to complaint to file the present complaint against the OP. The OP has been unnecessarily dragged into the litigation. The complainant has not approached this Commission with clean hands and as such, the complaint deserves dismissal on this ground alone. As per OP record true facts are that, the Tata truck bearing registration no.PB08 CX-8045 is insured with the OP from 26/4/18 to 25/4/19. The said truck met with an accident on 4/9/18. A claim has been lodged by complainant with the OP, vide claim no.20050033118C050257001001. OP appointed Sh. Rajinder Mohan Chauhan for spot survey and Sh. A. S. Sodhi was deputed for final survey to access the loss. Sh. A. S. Sodhi has submitted his final survey report on 14/1/19. The Groos Vehicle Weight/ Registered Laden Weight of the said truck was 16200 Kgs. The unladen Weight of the truck was 7000 Kgs and carrying capacity of the truck was 9200 Kgs but as per report at the date of accident, the said truck was loaded with 11070 Kgs of scrap against the permissible limit/carrying capacity limit of 9200 Kgs which means it was overloaded by 20.326%. The Head Office of OP has issued guidelines related to overloading of goods carrying vehicle. As per Head Office Circular No.HO:MOT:OD CIR:02:18 dated 22/6/2018 claim of overloading beyond 15% of Gross Vehicle Weight of the vehicle is to be repudiated. So in this case loss has been repudiated due to overloading of vehicle as per guidelines of head office of OP because there is a breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy by the insured. Regional Transport Authority, Jalandhar has also confirmed that Regd. laden weight of the above said truck was changed and approved from 16200 Kgs to 18500 Kgs on 9/1/2019 and the same is not valid on the date of loss i.e. on 4/9/18. On merits, the factum with regard to ownership of the vehicle by the complainant is admitted and it is also admitted that the truck met with an accident on 04.09.2018 and loss was lodged by the complainant with the OP and OP deputed surveyor for assessing the loss, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.

3.                Rejoinder to the written statement filed by the complainant, whereby reasserted the entire facts as narrated in the complaint and denied the allegations raised in the written statement. 

4.                In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties have produced on the file their respective evidence.

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the case file very minutely.

6.                The complainant has proved on record that his Truck No.PB08-CX-8045 M-2005 was insured with the OP, vide policy Ex.C-1, which was valid upto 25.04.2019. It is admitted fact that the truck met with an accident on 04.09.2018. It is also admitted that the claim was lodged by the complainant to the OP, which was repudiated by the OP. It has been alleged by the complainant that the claim has wrongly been repudiated by the OP on flimsy grounds. The repudiation letter has been proved as Ex.C-2/OP-4. Perusal of Ex.C-2/OP-4 shows that the claim was repudiated on the ground that the truck was loaded with 11070 kgs of iron scrap on the day when it met with an accident i.e. on 04.09.2018. As per the report of the Surveyor, on the date of loss registered laden weight and permit laden weight of the vehicle was 16200 kgs and the truck was loaded with 11070 kgs of scrap against the permissible limit of 9200 kgs, meaning thereby it was overloaded on the day when it met with an accident.

7.                The OP has proved on record the report of Surveyor Ex.OP-1 and they have also proved on record the Guidelines Relating to Overloading of Goods Carrying Vehicles as Ex.OP-2. The OP has proved on record the letter of RTA Ex.OP-3. The main reason/ground for repudiation of the claim was the overloading of the truck on the day, when it met with an accident. It is not disputed that the insurance was alive on the day when it met with an accident. As per the guidelines issued by the insurance company when the overloading exceeds 15% GVW of the vehicle, the claim is to be repudiated. Ex.OP-5, which is the Tax Invoice, show that the iron scrap was of 11070 kgs. As per the letter Ex.C-3, which is dated 10.08.2018, notification dated 16.07.2018 was amended and as per the annexure of this letter, there was a revision of Safe Axle Weights for transport vehicles and enforcement thereof. As per this letter, the Tyre Size is 10.00x20=2, Later G. V. W is 16200, Now G. V. W is 18500 and Axle weight is 7000. Ex.C-4 is the permit in favour of the complainant, which shows the gross vehicle weight of the vehicle as 16200 kgs. Ex.C-5 is the certificate of fitness and tax has been paid upto date as per the documents produced on record. It is not disputed that the weight of the vehicle is 16200 kgs and it is also proved that the scrap was of 11070 kgs. As per the letter i.e. notification dated 16.07.2018 Ex.C-3, Later G. V. W is 16200, Now G. V. W is 18500 and Axle weights is 7000/11500 and the weight in the present case is 9270 i.e. less than 11500, which shows that the laden weight has been changed from 16200 kgs to 18500 kgs. As per repudiation letter Ex.C2, the notification is not applicable and valid on the date of loss i.e. 04.09.2018, but this letter is wrong on the face of it. The accident occurred on 04.09.2018, the letter Ex.C-3 was issued on 10.08.2018 and that was in continuation of the letter dated 08.08.2018 and this letter shows that notification dated 16.07.2018 was amended. Meaning thereby that this amendment was valid from 16.07.2018, though it is not clear as to whether it was on the day of original notification or not, but even if, it is assumed that was not on the day of original notification, the same was amended from 08.08.2018 or 10.08.2018 on which date the letter was issued, in any of the above cases, the same was valid on 04.09.2018 as the letter was issued prior to 04.09.2018. Therefore, the repudiation letter Ex.C-2/OP-4 is illegal and wrong and the same is hereby set-aside. Thus, the complainant is entitled for the relief.

 8.               In the light of above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed and OP is directed to pay Rs.1,75,000/- as a cost of repair with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of accident till its realization. Further, OP is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant for causing mental tension and harassment and Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

9.                Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated                             Jaswant Singh Dhillon            Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj     

09.12.2022                    Member                              President