Punjab

StateCommission

A/375/2018

Balbir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

UIIC - Opp.Party(s)

11 Mar 2019

ORDER

                                                     FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH

 

 

STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION,    PUNJAB

          SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH

 

                   First Appeal No.375 of 2018

 

                                                          Date of Institution   : 26.06.2018     

                                                              Order Reserved on :06.03.2019

                                                          Date of Decision     : 11.03.2019

 

Balbir Singh son of Piara Singh, resident of House No. D V 5/7, Moh. Cheema Bazar, Nurmahal, District Jalandhar.

 

                                                                        ..Appellant/Complainant  

                   Versus

 

1.      United India Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office:- 2.Syal House Lajpat Nagar Market, Jalandhar through its Divisional Manager.

 

2.      Balwinder Singh, agent of United India Insurance Company Limited, Agent Code AGD0059600, Care of Divisional Office, United India Insurance Company Limited.2.Syal House, Lajpat Nagar Market, Jalandhar.

 

3.      Kapoor and Company/Surveyor, 261-B, Model Town Extension, Ludhiana through its Chief Executive.

 

4.      Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., ATI: ARLU LPG Territory, BPCL, P.O Tiwanan Via Larlu, Village Alamgir, Tehsil Rajpura , Pin 140510 through its M.D/Executive Director.

 

                                                          …..Respondents/Opposite parties

 

First Appeal against order dated 29.05.2018 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,  Jalandhar.

Quorum:-

          Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member

             Sh.Rajinder Goyal, Member.

Present:-

          For the appellant                   :  Sh.Inderjit Singh, Advocate

          For the respondents no.1to3 :  Sh.Ravinder Arora, Advocate

          For the respondent no.4       :  None

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

J.S KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER :-

         

                    Challenge in this appeal by appellant is to order dated 29.05.2018 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Jalandhar, dismissing the complaint of appellant  against  respondents no.2 to 4 of this appeal. The appellant of this appeal is complainant in the complaint before District Forum Jalandhar and respondents of this appeal are opposite parties (in short OPs) therein and they be referred as such hereinafter for the sake of convenience.

2.                The complainant/Balbir Singh has filed the complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against OPs on the averments, that he got d his vehicle insured bearing registration no.PB-08-AY-9527 with OP no.1, vide policy no.2013003114  P9109107297 for the period 24.01.2015 to 23.01.2016 against insured declared value of Rs.4,80,000/- by paying premium of Rs.24,897/-. He termed deficiency in service on the part of OPs in rejecting his insurance claim with regard to the loss of the insured truck in the eruption of fire, as cylinders were loaded in it at the relevant time on 14.07.2015 on Machiwara-Rahon Road near Udhowal. OP no.2 is alleged to be an agent of OP no.1 and OP no.3 is surveyor and OP no.4 is the seller of the cylinders. The complainant filed the complaint claiming the insured declared value of the vehicle as Rs.4,80,000/- on account of loss of the vehicle in the above accident of fire and further directing OP no.4 to return back the amount of Rs.12,06,294.85 recovered from him towards LPG cylinders, besides Rs.1 lac as compensation for mental harassment and Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation to him.

3.                Upon notice, OP no.1 appeared and filed written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant,  raising preliminary objections that complaint is barred by time, as such, it is not maintainable. Any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP no.1 was denied. It was admitted by OP no.1 that complainant has lodged claim regarding damage caused to his vehicle in the accident, which occurred on 14.07.2015 on Macchhiwara Rahon Road District Khanna. On receipt of information, OP no.1 appointed M/s Kapoor and Company surveyor to assess the loss to the insured vehicle, who assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.1273831.00 minus salvage of the vehicle worth Rs.90000.00 i.e. Rs.1183831.00. The vehicle in question was loaded with LPG cylinders and they caught fire all of a sudden and vehicle in question got engulfed in the fire.  At the time of alleged accident, the driver of the vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving license, which was breach of condition of policy of insurance issued to complainant, as such, claim of the complainant was repudiated by OP no.1, vide letter dated 09.05.2016 on that score. OP no.1 controverted the other averments of the complainant even on merits and it prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                The District Forum Jalandhar dismissed the complaint against OP no.2 agent , OP no.3 surveyor and OP no.4  the vendor of the cylinders.

5.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also examined the record of the case.

6.                After hearing respective submissions of counsel for the parties and from perusal of record, we find that complainant has specifically sought  relief of amount of Rs.12,06,294.85 as price of LPG cylinders from OP no.4 now respondent no.4 in the appeal. Similarly, OP no.2/Balwinder Singh is the agent of Insurance Company and OP no.3 is surveyor appointed by insurance company to assess  the loss. The District Forum Jalandhar has not proceeded against them and dismiss the complaint against them. We find that complainant has specifically prayed for relief against OP no.4/Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd for sale of LPG cylinders and as such, dismissal of complaint against OP no.4 is unjust and unlawful. OP no.2 is agent of OP no.1. The relief has also been sought against OP no.1 by complainant. There are no allegation of any negligence or deficiency in service or unfair trade practice attributed to OP no.2 by complainant in the complaint. Consequently, the order of District Forum dismissing the complaint against OP no.2 /Balwinder Singh  agent of United India Insurance Company  is justified and affirmed. The District Forum also dismissed the complaint against OP no.3/Surveyor appointed by insurance company for assessing the loss. The surveyor’s business is only to assess the loss and submit its report to the insurer for passing the order thereon with regard to claim. No relief has been sought against OP no.3/Surveyor by the complainant personally.  We find that relief of the complainant is against insurance company/OP no.1 only for recovery of the claimed amount and dismissal of the complaint against OP no.3 cannot said to be erroneous in any manner by District Forum.

7.                As a result of our above discussion, we partly accept the appeal of the appellant  only on limited point between complainant and OP no.4 only and remand the case to District Forum Jalandhar for proceedings against Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd/OP no.4 in this case, whereas order of dismissal of complaint against OP no.2 /agent and OP no.3/Kapoor and Company /Surveyor is affirmed. The case is now remanded to District Forum Jalandhar and District Forum shall proceed the case against OP no.4 by summoning it and then to decide the case in accordance with law between complainant and OP no.4 with regard to the quantum of relief sought against OP no.4 only.  The order of District Forum qua OP no.1/Insurance Company is affirmed in this appeal.

8.                The concerned parties are directed to appear before District Forum Jalandhar on 15.05.2019 either in person or through their authorized representatives and District Forum shall ensure their presence before proceeding further with the case.

9.                Arguments in this appeal were heard on 06.03.2019 and the order was reserved. Certified copies of the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.

10.              The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.

 

                                                                       (J. S. KLAR)

                                                          PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

                                                          (RAJINDER KUMAR GOYAL)

                                                                         MEMBER

                    

                                                                  

March 11, 2019                                                          

(ravi)