Date of Filing: 27/06/2016
Date of Order: 17/01/2018
ORDER
BY SRI.SYED ANSER KHALEEM, PRESIDENT
1. This is the complaint filed U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 alleging the deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps and prays for orders to direct the O.Ps to pay the claimed amount as per the policy No.1405552334001142 and to pay Rs.7,37,607/- towards compensation also to pay Rs.30,000/- towards cost of the proceedings to the complainant.
2. Brief facts of the complaint are that, the complainant had taken policy from Reliance General Insurance bearing policy No 1405552334001142 and subscribing Rs 28313/-, commencing from 14.05.2015 to 13.05.2016 for the insurance amount of Rs 6,31,050/- which covers the insurance for the vehicle bearing No KA-06-C-0792 of Eicher Cargo bearing Engine No EA83CDAD232039 and Chassis No MC23HRCOAEO41312 of 2010 model and the complainant regularly paid the premium to the O.Ps. Further states that policy holder is the owner of the said vehicle. It is stated that on 11.05.2016 the above said vehicle was transporting goods of furniture from Nagpur to Bangalore. The consignor named Bharti Retail Ltd C/o Furniture supply Chain solution limited. Further the driver P.Manjunath on National High way No. 44 was driving the said vehicle at Mehaboob Nagar, Telangana State and on12.05.2016 at about 15.00 hrs the driver noticed fire in his vehicle so the driver suddenly stopped and tried to douse the fire and also informed the Fire Tender and till the fire tender could reach, the fire engulfed the entire vehicle and the furniture completely burnt down. Further states that the driver lodged a police complaint with Pebbair police station, Mehaboob Nagar on 13.05.2016 and the police prepared FIR and took up the investigation. Further states that on the same day the policy holder of the said vehicle informed the O.Ps regarding the Fire Accident by way of SMS and the O.Ps also conducted the survey and asked to take the vehicle to Bangalore for further procedure. It is stated that after coming to Bangalore the vehicle was left for repairs and replacement of burnt parts with Sri Lakshmi Motor Service Pvt. Ltd, Mysore Road, and estimation for the vehicle was also given. It is alleged that the O.Ps refused to honour the claim for the said damaged vehicle. Hence this complaint,
3. Upon issuance of notice on O.Ps, O.P No 1 entered appearance through its counsel and filed its version. Whereas O.P No 2 despite the service of notice did not appear before the Forum and hence placed Ex-parte.
4. In the version of the O.P No 1 it is contended that the compliant is not maintainable either in law or on facts so for as the relief sought. It is admitted that complainant insured the Eicher Cargo Lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-06-C-0792 in terms of the of policy of insurance issued. The liability of the insurer is subject to the terms and condition of the policy. It is contended that having received the information from the complainant on 25.05.2016 regarding the fire accident that occurred on 12.05.2016 immediately O.P No 1 appointed a surveyor for inspection of the fire loss to the insured lorry and for the final surveyor for assessment of loss. Further after the inspection of the vehicle and he submitted the report to the company. It is contended that the O.P No 1 asked the complainant to submit claim form and all other relevant documents, accordingly the complainant had submitted the some of the document and on verification it is noticed that the driver of the lorry was not having valid and effective license to drive the lorry, which is in contravention of the policy condition and also the violation of the Motor Vehicle Rule. Hence contended that O.P No 1 is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant. Further contended that the license to drive the transport vehicle was expired on 22.09.2014 and the same was renewed only 18.05.2016 and therefore, in order to drive the insured lorry the driver was not having effective driving license on the date of the accident, hence the claim of the complainant was repudiated. Further O.P No 1 denied all other allegation made in the complaint and ultimately prays for dismissal of the complaint.
5. In order to substantiate the case of the parties and both the parties filed their affidavit evidence. We also heard the arguments.
6. On the basis of the pleading of the parties, the following points will arise for our consideration is:-
(A) Whether the complainant has proved
deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps?
(B) Whether the complainant is entitled to
the relief prayed for in the complaint?
(C) What order?
7. Our answers to the above points are:-
POINT (A) & (B): In the partly affirmative.
POINT (C): As per the final order
for the following:
REASONS
POINT No. (A) & (B):-
8. On perusal of rival pleading of the parties it is not in dispute that complainant got insured his Eicher cargo Lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-06-C-0792 with the O.Ps. It is also not dispute while transporting the goods i.e., Furniture from Nagapur to Bangalroe and on the way of NH-44 the said vehicle caught fire and burnt down the entire furniture and the lorry. It is also not in dispute that the complainant intimated the burning of the lorry which is covered under the insurance to the O.Ps and the O.Ps appointed the surveyor. It is also not in dispute after inspection the surveyor submitted the report and after submitting claim papers, the O.Ps repudiated the claim on the ground that the driver of the lorry in question is not having valid driving license.
9. The crux of the matter is to consider whether the complainant is entitled for the claim under the coverage of insurance policy.?
10. It is worth to note that insurance is a contract and both parties are bound by the terms and condition of the contract. The object of the insurance is to meet unforeseen incident and the object is to overcome the monetary loss suffered by the insured and the insurer as to make good the loss.
11. On perusing the document No.4 the Fire Attendant Certificate it clearly reveals that the accident occurred on 12.05.2016 at 15.10 hours and the same is not in dispute. On perusing the document No.7 and 8 it also discloses the lodging of the police complaint and registration of FIR after the occurrence of the fire incident and the same is not in dispute.
12. It is worth to note that the accident occurred not by driving the vehicle erratically but due to sudden caught of fire to the lorry which was insured with the O.Ps. Hence the validity or invalidity of driving license is nothing to do with the incident. Furthermore the driver of the said lorry though having driving license was expired and subsequently renewed and it does not mean the driver of the lorry in question during the passage of time i.e. from date of expiry to date of renewal disqualified by the competent authority from driving. Therefore, the O.Ps cannot exonerate their liability merely on technical grounds.
13. On perusing Annexure C, the authorization certificate of N.P. (goods) issued by the Transport Department Karnataka relating to said lorry involved in the accident. It is evident that the N.P. Authorization and the validity of basic goods permit is up to 07.06.2020. Further on perusal of Annexure A, the insurance policy which commences from 14.05.2015 to midnight 13.05.2016 and the accident occurred on 12.05.2015 it is evident that the accident occurred during the currency of the policy and hence complainant is entitled for the claim under the coverage of policy. Further on pursing the document No. 5 produced by the complainant the Driving license discloses that the driving license issued on 13.03.1998 and validity up 12.03.2018 and also is permitted to drive LMV, LMV –GV, TRANS and PSVBUS and it clearly evident that there is no legal hurdle to settle the claim and the same is not contrary to the terms and condition of the insurance policy. However, the O.Ps repudiated the claim only on the technical ground just to exonerate their liability and the repudiation is not justifiable. The non settling of the claim and making the complainant to wonder from pillar to post it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.
14. Further on perusal of the copy of Insurance policy it discloses that the complainant is eligible for the insured amount Rs.6,31,050/- and however, complainant or the O.Ps did not produced the actual loss to assess the quantum of compensation but the survey report estimated loss to an extent of Rs.16,43859/- whereas the complainant himself sought in the complainant to an extent of Rs.7,67,607/- but the insurance liability is fixed for Rs.6,31,050/-, under the circumstance we deem it just and proper to direct the O.P.No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.6,31,050/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of complaint till its realization. Further for non settling the claim and it made the complainant to wander from pillar to post and hence complainant also entitled for Rs.2,000/- towards cost of the proceedings and it will meets the ends of justice. Accordingly, we answered the Points No. (A) and (B) in the partly affirmative.
POINT No. (C):
15. On the basis of answering the Points (A) and (B), and in the result, we proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
- The complaint is allowed in part with cost.
- The O.P No 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.6,31,050/- to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of complaint till its realization.
- Further O.P.No.1 and 2 are hereby directed to pay Rs.2,000/- towards cost of the proceedings.
- The O.P. No.1 and 2 are hereby directed to comply the order of this Forum within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and submit the compliance report to this Forum within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order.
- Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 17th Day of January 2018)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
