Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 482
Instituted on : 18.09.2019.
Decided on : 19.09.2022.
Sonu Dalal age-30 yrs. S/o Ishwar Dalal R/o Village-Mattan, Teh.& District Jhajjar at present Sonu Dalal C/o Mukesh Devi R/o Village-Bahu Akbarpur, Teh. & Dist.-Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited, Unit No. 401, 4th Floor, Sangam Complex, 127 Andherri-Kurla Road, Andheri(East), Mumbai-400059.
- Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited, Zonal Office SCO-9, First Floor, Above Central Bank of India, Sector-10, Panchkula.
……….Opposite parties.
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. Pawan Balhara, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Gulshan Chawla, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case as per complainant are that he is registered owner of a truck bearing registration no. HR-63C-9724 and same was insured with opposite party company vide policy no. USGI/POSWEB/0171751/00/000 and the same was valid from 21.11.2018 to 20.11.2019. On 07.02.2019, the said vehicle met with an accident and the same was duly informed by the complainant to the officials of the opposite parties telephonically. The surveyor was appointed by the company, who asked the complainant to brought his vehicle on workshop and the same was brought by complainant with the help of crane and paid an amount of Rs.5000/- as lifting charges. The complainant got repaired his vehicle from different mechanics and the vehicle was also got inspected by the surveyor of company. It is further submitted that the surveyor illegally demanded an amount of Rs.50,000/- from the complainant as bribe but the complainant refused to pay the same. Thereafter the complainant applied to the opposite parties for insurance claim vide claim no. CL18137347, but the officials of opposite party served a notice to him for cancellation of his lawful claim on the ground that vehicle load body size was modified by him. Complainant approached the opposite parties and requested to disburse the claim amount in his favour. The alleged letter was duly shown issued on 20.03.2018, whereas the incident was happened on 07.02.2019 and also shown wrong policy number, which clearly shows that officials of the opposite parties have illegally dismissed the claim of the complainant. The act and conduct of the opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay the amount of claim i.e. Rs.4,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of accident till the date of its actual realization, Rs.50,000/-as compensation and Rs.11,000/-as litigation expenses to the complainant as explained in relief clause.
2. After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties No. 1 and 2 in their reply has submitted that complainant had availed a Goods Carrying Package Policy bearing number 2315/59116466/00/000 for the time period of 21.11.2018 to 20.11.2019 for the IDV of Rs.17,00,000/- and the said vehicle was met with an accident on 07.02.2019 for which claim was filed on the same day vide claim number CL18137347 for better communication in regard to present loss. They appointed a surveyor who assessed the loss for an amount of Rs.2,62,205/-(Two lakhs sixty two thousand two hundred & five rupees only) but the same was not paid as the surveyor has observed that vehicle load body size modified and this is in violation of Motor Vehicle Act Section 52. It is further submitted that claim of the complainant has been rightly repudiated vide letter dated 20.03.2019 but due to typographical error date was mentioned as 20.03.2018. The complainant in his entire complaint has not rebutted the factum regarding modification of the vehicle which is ground for repudiation. It is prayed that complaint may kindly be dismissed with costs qua the opposite party No. 1 and 2.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C19 and has closed his evidence on dated 27.07.2021. Ld. Counsel for opposite parties has tendered affidavits Ex.RW1/A & Ex.RW1/B, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R4 and closed his evidence on dated 18.02.2022.
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, insurance and accident of the vehicle is not disputed. Opposite parties appointed a surveyor who assessed the loss to the vehicle for an amount of Rs.2,62,205/- but the same has not been paid to the complainant on the ground vehicle load body size was modified and this is violation of Motor Vehicle Act Section 52. It is also contended that the complainant in his entire complaint has not rebutted the factum regarding modification of the vehicle. In this context, we have observed that the vehicle in question is a commercial vehicle and as per the rules of State Govt. after every six months, vehicle has been got checked by the Registering Authority and the vehicle has been passed for further functioning and each and everything has been checked by the Registering Authority. The vehicle in question was insured by the opposite party for the period 21.11.2018 to 20.11.2019 and within six month of passing the vehicle, surveyor has mentioned that insured has modified/enhanced the size of the tipper body of the vehicle upto 3 feet. But it is nowhere mentioned in the documents of the opposite parties that what is the prescribed height of the tipper body and what was the size of tipper body at the time of accident. Photocopy of photographs placed on record shows the both side and front body of the tipper has not been modified, only tail gate of the tipper body is slightly high. But no Motor Vehicle Transport Rules have been placed on record to prove the alleged facts. Moreover it is not the case of the opposite parties that at the time of accident, the vehicle was overloaded. Hence the claim has been wrongly repudiated by the opposite parties and there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. As such opposite parties are liable to pay the claim amount to the complainant as assessed by the surveyor. However, the law cited by ld. counsel for the opposite parties of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal nos. 219-222 of 2019 titled as Regional Transport Officer & Ors. etc. Vs. K.Jayachandra & Anr. is not fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case.
9. In view of the fact and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite parties to pay the amount of Rs.2,62,205/-(Rupees two lac sixty two thousand two hundred and five only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 18.09.2019 till its realisation and shall also pay Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.
8. 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:
19.09.2022.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
……………………………….
Vijender Singh, Member.
