State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
United India Insurance Company Ltd. vs Narendra Tyagi on 9 May, 2024
First Appeal No. United India Insurance Company Limited 09.05.2024
90 of 2022 Versus
Sh. Narendra Tyagi
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND
DEHRADUN
Date of Admission: 11.07.2022
Date of Final Hearing: 06.05.2024
Date of Pronouncement: 09.05.2024
FIRST APPEAL NO. 90 / 2022
United India Insurance Company Limited
Branch Office, Kailash Gate, Muni-Ki-Reti
District Tehri Garhwal and United India Insurance Company Limited
Divisional Office, Tagore Villa, Dehradun
Presently at Tilak Road, Dehradun through its
Assistant Manager Sh. Ashwini Kasana
United India Insurance Company Limited, Regional Office
Ratan Palace, Kaulagarh Road, Dehradun
(Through: Sh. R.K. Garg, Advocate)
...... Appellant
Versus
Sh. Narendra Tyagi S/o Sh. Harbans Lal Tyagi
R/o 44, Ganga Nagar, Rishikesh
District Dehradun
(Through: Sh. Amit Agarwal, Advocate)
...... Respondent
Coram:
Ms. Kumkum Rani, President
Mr. B.S. Manral, Member
ORDER
(Per: Ms. Kumkum Rani, President):
This appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 has been directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 23.04.2022 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dehradun (hereinafter to be referred as "The District Commission") in consumer complaint No. 276 of 2015, styled as Sh.
Narendra Tyagi Vs. Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited and another, wherein and whereby the consumer complaint was allowed.
1First Appeal No. United India Insurance Company Limited 09.05.2024 90 of 2022 Versus Sh. Narendra Tyagi
2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, in brief, are, as such that the respondent / complainant had filed aforesaid consumer complaint before the District Commission, alleging that he had purchased a vehicle (Tata Indica Vista) bearing registration No. UK07-TC-1417 for the purposes of earning his livelihood. The said vehicle was insured with the appellant - insurance company vide policy No. 2502023113P101411856 for the period from 05.06.2013 to 04.06.2014. On account of brake failure, the insured vehicle met with an accident on 13.01.2014 at Anand Chowk, Chamba Road and got completely damaged. All the documents of the insured vehicle were valid on the date of the accident. The intimation of the occurrence was immediately given to the insurance company. The complainant had submitted his claim before the insurance company and he was assured that his claim shall be decided at the earliest. The documents sought by the surveyor of the insurance company were duly provided, but the insurance company did not settle the claim inspite of repeated requests. Through letter dated 07.07.2015, the insurance company repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground of overloading of the vehicle, which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the insurance company. Therefore, the consumer complaint was submitted before the District Commission.
3. The appellant - insurance company (opposite parties before the District Commission) filed written statement, wherein it was pleaded that the consumer complaint is based on incorrect facts. On investigation of the claim, it was found that the claim submitted was not in accordance with the terms and conditions of the insurance policy as well as provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, hence the same was repudiated by the insurance company. Apart from it, the insurance company has deputed its investigator Sh. Anil Chandra Kukreti, who 2 First Appeal No. United India Insurance Company Limited 09.05.2024 90 of 2022 Versus Sh. Narendra Tyagi submitted report dated 12.10.2014, stating therein that at time of accident, more than 05 (five) persons including the driver were on board / sitting in the vehicle, whereas the permitted seating capacity of the vehicle was 05 (five) passengers. Therefore, vide letter dated 17.10.2014, the claim was rightly repudiated and the consumer complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. Learned District Commission, after hearing both the parties and after taking into consideration the material available on record, passed the impugned judgment and order dated 23.04.2022, thereby allowing the consumer complaint and directing the insurance company to pay an amount of Rs. 1,89,500/- to the respondent / complainant on Net of Salvage Basis without RC together with Rs. 20,000/- towards mental agony and Rs. 5,000/- towards costs, within a period of 30 days', failing which the complainant was also held entitled to interest @9% p.a. on the aforesaid amount, payable from the date of filing of the consumer complaint till payment.
5. On having been aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order, the present appeal has been submitted on behalf of the insurance company as an appellant, alleging that learned District Commission has failed to consider the fact that the insured vehicle No. UK07-TC-1417 was being driven overloaded, in violation of the conditions of permit as well as provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and also in contravention of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and 06 (six) persons, i.e., 05 (five) passengers and 01 (one) driver were travelling in the insured vehicle at the time of accident. Therefore, learned District Commission has wrongly made an observation that there was no violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It was further stated that the District Commission also failed to consider the plea of the insurance company raised in para 15 of the 3 First Appeal No. United India Insurance Company Limited 09.05.2024 90 of 2022 Versus Sh. Narendra Tyagi written statement regarding territorial jurisdiction of the District Commission and that the consumer complaint should have been submitted before the District Commission, Tehri Garhwal, but the same was ignored by the District Commission. Therefore, the District Commission has erred in not considering the plea taken by the insurance company regarding territorial jurisdiction as well as seating capacity of the vehicle. Thus, the District Commission has exercised the jurisdiction not vested in it by law and overlooked the pleadings, documents and evidence available on record. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order is liable to be set aside and the appeal is also liable to be allowed.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The main contention of the appellant - insurance company is as such that the District Commission below had no jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint, because the cause of action in the matter has arisen within the territory of District Tehri Garhwal. Learned counsel for the appellant has stated that the insurance policy was taken at Tehri Garhwal from the Branch Office of the insurance company situated at Tehri Garhwal because Muni-Ki-Reti falls within the territory of District Tehri Garhwal, therefore the consumer complaint ought to have been filed before the District Commission, Tehri Garhwal. Hence, the consumer complaint is liable to be dismissed. The rival contention of learned counsel for respondent / complainant was that in the insurance policy, it was specifically mentioned that Muni-Ki-Reti and the Branch Office of the insurance company, from whom the insurance policy was obtained, fall within the territory of Rishikesh, District Dehradun, therefore, the consumer complaint was rightly submitted before the District Commission, Dehradun.
4First Appeal No. United India Insurance Company Limited 09.05.2024 90 of 2022 Versus Sh. Narendra Tyagi
7. We have perused the documentary evidence available on record in the context of the arguments advanced before us. Annexure - 1 (Paper No. 24) of the memo of appeal is the copy of insurance policy, wherein the address of United India Insurance Company Limited is mentioned as "Kailash Gate, Omkaranand Complex, Muni-Ki-Reti, Rishikesh, District Dehradun". This apart, copy of certificate of insurance (Paper No. 25) also discloses address of policy issuing office as "Kailash Gate, Omkaranand Complex, Muni-Ki-Reti, Rishikesh - 249201, Dehradun". Thus, it is clear that the insurance was issued by the Branch Office of the insurance company situated within the territory of District Dehradun. Hence, in such circumstances, the consumer complaint could have very well been submitted before the District Commission, Dehradun and we are of the considered view that the District Commission, Dehradun was fully empowered to entertain the consumer complaint and decide the same on merits.
8. The 2nd contention of the appellant is as to that learned District Commission has ignored the plea of overloading of the vehicle at the time of the accident and has not considered that at the time of the accident, six persons were travelling / sitting in the vehicle, which was more than the permitted seating capacity of five passengers, therefore, the District Commission has erred in allowing the consumer complaint. Against this, the rival contention on behalf of respondent was that in the judgment rendered by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / 2nd Additional District Judge, Rishikesh, it was clearly held that there was no violation of the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and that at the time of accident, five persons including driver were travelling in the vehicle, therefore, such contention raised by learned counsel for the insurance company is not tenable.
5First Appeal No. United India Insurance Company Limited 09.05.2024 90 of 2022 Versus Sh. Narendra Tyagi
9. We have perused the judgment dated 29.03.2016 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / 2nd Additional District Judge, Rishikesh in M.A.C.P. No. 119 of 2015; Smt. Vimla Devi and another Vs. Sh. Narendra Tyagi and others, copy whereof is Paper Nos. 51 to 56 on record. While deciding issue Nos. 2 & 3, learned Tribunal has held that there was no violation of permitted seating capacity of the vehicle. During the course of arguments, it was conceded on behalf of the insurance company that the award passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has been satisfied by the insurance company. Thus, when learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has found that there was no violation of the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as well terms and conditions of the insurance policy and there was no overloading in the vehicle at the time of the accident, in such circumstances, it can not be said that there were more persons in the vehicle at the time of the accident than the permitted seating capacity of the vehicle. The insurance company has not produced any witness or person, who was sitting in the vehicle at the time of the accident, to show and prove that six persons were sitting in the vehicle at the time of the accident. Thus, we are of the definite view that there was no violation of the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as well terms and conditions of the insurance policy and the award passed by learned District Commission is just and proper. Learned District Commission has passed the impugned judgment and order after perusing the evidence. Learned District Commission has not exceeded its jurisdiction. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the impugned judgment and order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity and learned District Commission has not committed any error in allowing the consumer complaint. As such, we are not inclined to interfere with the finding recorded by the District Commission. The impugned judgment and order passed by the District Commission is not perverse.
6First Appeal No. United India Insurance Company Limited 09.05.2024 90 of 2022 Versus Sh. Narendra Tyagi Hence, the appeal filed by the insurance company is liable to be dismissed.
10. Appeal is dismissed. Impugned judgment and order dated 23.04.2022 passed by the District Commission is hereby affirmed. No order as to costs of the appeal.
11. A copy of this Order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 / 2019. The Order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties. A copy of this Order be sent to the concerned District Commission for record and necessary information.
12. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this Order.
(Ms. Kumkum Rani) President (Mr. B.S. Manral) Member Pronounced on: 09.05.2024 7