State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Tata Aig General Insurance Comapny Ltd. ... vs Harpreet Singh on 27 January, 2021
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.139 of 2020
Date of institution : 09.03.2020
Date of decision : 27.01.2021
1. Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited, Registered
Office, Peninsula Business Park, Tower-A, 15th Floor, G.K. Marg,
Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013, through its Authorized Signatory.
2. Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited, 3rd Floor, the
Orion, 5 Koregaon Park Road, Pune-411011, through its
Authorized Signatory.
Now both through TATA AIG General Insurance Company, 2nd
Floor, SCO 6, Sector 14, Gurgaon, through its Chief Manager
(Legal Claims), being Authorized Signatory.
....Appellants/Opposite Parties
Versus
Harpreet Singh, aged 22 years, son of Sh. Partap Singh, Resident of
Village Mallu Walie Wala, District Ferozepur. Mobile-9914913213.
....Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal against the order dated
13.12.2019 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum (now,
"Commission) Ferozepur.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, President
Mr. Rajinder Kumar Goyal, Member
Mrs. Kiran Sibal, Member.
1) Whether Reporters of the Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No
2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No
3) Whether judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No Argued By:-
For the appellants : Sh. R.C. Gupta, Advocate
For the respondent : Sh. Sukhdeep Singh, Advocate.
First Appeal No.139 of 2020 2
JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL, PRESIDENT
The instant appeal has been filed by the
appellants/opposite parties against the order dated 13.12.2019 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (now, "Commission), Ferozepur (in short, "the District Commission"), whereby the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, was allowed, in the following terms:
"In view of what has been discussed above, the present complaint is allowed against the opposite parties with ₹4000/- as consolidated compensation for mental agony, pain and harassment. The opposite parties are directed to settle and pay the claim of the complainant along with interest @8% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till realization. Compliance of this order be made within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order; failing which, complainant shall be at liberty to get the order executed through the indulgence of this Forum."
2. It would be apposite to mention that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District Commission. Facts of the Complaint
3. Brief facts, as averred in the complaint, are that the complainant purchased a tractor make Mahindra 555 DI, Model 2018, bearing Engine No.NHJ2UDE0110, Chassis No.MBNBEBBUBHNJ. He got it insured with the opposite parties, vide insurance policy bearing No.015795191500 after paying requisite premium of ₹12,887/- which was valid from 29.01.2018 to 28.01.2019. The total sum insured under that policy was ₹6,17,500/-. Unfortunately on 12.10.2018, some stray cattle suddenly came in front of the said tractor being driven by the complainant and in order to save the stray animal, it went off the First Appeal No.139 of 2020 3 road and struck against a tree and was damaged. The opposite parties were immediately informed about the accident and they appointed the surveyor, who told the complainant to park the said tractor in Gill Agency, Talwandi Road, Zira. The surveyor also took photographs of the damaged tractor and got prepared an estimate regarding the loss. However, the opposite parties have failed to pay the insurance amount to the complainant, despite lapse of sufficient time. The said Gill Agency gave an estimate of ₹49,038/- for repairs of the tractor. The complainant also lodged a complaint on helpline No.0821033802, but no response was received. He also met the surveyor, who told that his claim was rejected by the opposite parties. The opposite parties had no reason to repudiate the genuine claim of the complainant. Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant approached the District Commission, seeking following directions to them:
i) to pay ₹49,038/, being the loss suffered by the tractor, along with interest;
ii) to pay ₹1,00,000/- as compensation and damages; and
iii) to pay ₹11,000/- as litigation expenses.
Defence of the Opposite Parties
4. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared before the District Commission and filed their joint reply to the complaint, raising preliminary objections that there is no deficiency in service on their part. The complainant suppressed the material facts. True facts are that as per the claim form, the tractor went off the road, when it was First Appeal No.139 of 2020 4 abruptly steered to save the stray animal and struck against the tree and while pulling it out, support front axle of the same was damaged. However, at the time of physical inspection of the damaged vehicle by independent IRDA licensed Surveyor and Loss Assessor, Mr. Sanjeev Narula, it was found that the damages were not in consonance with the cause of loss, as mentioned in the Claim Form. As per report submitted by the surveyor, the damages claimed in the estimate were running damages i.e. due to normal wear and tear and were not accidental in nature. Moreover, the complainant had shifted the tractor from the workshop without any repairs and despite repeated reminders, neither he informed about any repairs/replacements nor submitted any repair invoice. The driving licence of the driver was also not valid and effective for driving the tractor at the time of accident. Thus, the claim was not payable. The opposite parties sent letter dated 11.01.2019 and reminder 20.03.2019 to the complainant, expressing their willingness to decline the insurance claim. However, the complainant never responded to those letters. On merits, similar pleas, as raised in preliminary objections, were reiterated and denying all other allegations contained in the complaint, dismissal thereof was prayed.
Evidence of the Parties and Finding of the District Commission
5. The complainant, in support of his claim, tendered into evidence his own affidavit as Ex.C-1, along with documents i.e. letter dated 31.01.2018 Ex.C-2, Certificate of Insurance Ex.C-3, receipt of premium Ex.C-4, Transcript of Proposal Ex.C-5, RC Ex.C-6, driving First Appeal No.139 of 2020 5 licence Ex.C-7, estimate of repairs Ex.C-8 & Ex.C-10 and letter dated 11.01.2019 Ex.C-9 (colly.). The opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Amit Chawla, Chief Manager, as Ex.OPs-1, along with documents i.e. Intimation-cum-Preliminary Claim Form Ex.OPs-2, letter dated 11.01.2019 Ex.OPs-3, letter dated 20.03.2019 Ex.OPs-4, Motor (Final) Survey Report Ex.OPs-5, driving licence Ex.OPs-6 and Certificate of Insurance Ex.OPs-7. The District Commission, after going through the record and hearing learned counsel for the parties, allowed the complaint, vide impugned order, in the above manner. Hence, this appeal.
Contentions of the Parties
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the written arguments submitted on their behalf and records of the case.
7. The written arguments submitted on behalf of the appellants/opposite parties are on the lines of pleadings made in their reply as well as grounds of appeal. The sum and substance of oral and written arguments is that the damages suffered by the tractor, in question, were running damages due to normal wear and tear. The complainant had taken the tractor from the repairing agency and did not inform the opposite parties about any repairs/replacements, nor submitted any repair invoice. It is further contended that the complainant was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. He breached the declaration given by him to provide true and accurate information. The complainant produced estimate of First Appeal No.139 of 2020 6 ₹49,038/-, without any supporting documents, whereas the surveyor has assessed the loss to the tune of ₹25,500/-, subject to terms and conditions of the insurance policy. However, the District Commission awarded ₹49,038/- without any rhyme or reason. The impugned order suffers from illegality and the same is liable to be set aside.
8. The written arguments submitted on behalf of the respondent/complainant are on the lines of averments made in their complaint. The sum and substance of oral and written arguments is that the tractor, in question, was a brand new vehicle being of 2018 model and the accident occurred just after 8 months of its purchase. Thus, it cannot be said that the damages suffered by it in the accident were normal wear and tear. The complainant was having a valid driving licence (LMV) to drive the tractor, in question, at the time of accident. The impugned order is based on correct appreciation of facts, circumstances and evidence on record and the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
Consideration of Contentions
9. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties.
10. It is an admitted fact that the insured tractor of the complainant met with an accident on 12.10.2018, while trying to save a stray cattle, within the validity period of the Certificate of Insurance, Ex.C-3 i.e. 29.01.2018 to 28.01.2019. Upon receipt of information about the accident, the opposite parties deputed Sh. Sanjeev Narula, Surveyor and Loss Assessor to inspect the tractor, in question, and First Appeal No.139 of 2020 7 assess the loss. He gave Motor (Final) Survey Report dated 18.12.2018, Ex.OPs-5, in which the total amount, as per original estimate, is mentioned as ₹38,879/-. The aforesaid original estimate, as mentioned in the survey report, has not been produced on record by either of the parties. We find that the survey report is not comprehensive and no definite conclusion has been drawn in the same. Complete details are not mentioned in it. The opposite parties issued letters dated 11.01.2019 and 20.03.2019, Ex.OPs-3 and Ex.OPs-4, stating that the damages suffered by the vehicle were not coincided with the cause of loss. As per the declaration made by the insured in the Claim Form, he was duty bound to disclose true and correct facts about the claim. The opposite parties expressed their intention to decline the claim and asked the complainant to submit his explanation/documents, if any, in support of claim. The plea of the opposite parties is that the complainant never responded to those letters. The complainant has produced only the estimate of ₹49,038/- dated 08.01.2019/04.02.2019, Ex.C-8/Ex.C-10, prepared by Gill Automobiles, Sultanpur Lodhi, except the said estimate, no supporting original bills/invoices have been produced by him. Thus, he has failed to prove by leading cogent and convincing evidence that the tractor suffered the loss to the tune of ₹49,038/-. Without complete details/bills/invoices, the said estimate produced by the complainant cannot be relied upon. However, the cause of loss has been duly mentioned in the survey report and it cannot be said that the losses suffered by the tractor, in question, were only the normal wear and First Appeal No.139 of 2020 8 tear. The District Commission only ordered the opposite parties to settle and pay the insurance claim to the complainant, along with interest and costs. However, the impugned order needs to be modified and we deem it appropriate that the complainant is entitled to ₹38,879/- towards loss suffered by the tractor, in question, along with interest, as assessed by the surveyor (Ex.OPs-5).
11. So far as the plea of the opposite parties that the complainant was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident, is concerned, it needs to be mentioned that the complainant has produced on record copy of Registration Certificate, Ex.C-3, as per which the vehicle, in question, is an "Agricultural Tractor" and its unladen weight is 2388 kg. As per copy of driving licence, Ex.C-4, class of the tractor, in question, is mentioned as LMV/LMV/CAB/MCWG. It was/is valid for driving the transport vehicles up to 01.02.2018 and non-transport vehicles up to 30.10.2033. Rule 2(b) of Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, reads as follows:
"agricultural tractor" means any mechanically propelled 4-wheel vehicle designed to work with suitable implements for various field operations and/or trailers to transport agricultural materials. Agricultural tractor is a non-transport vehicle."
A bare perusal of aforesaid Rule reveals that if a tractor is registered as an "Agricultural Tractor" to be exclusively used for agriculture operation, then it would be a non-transport vehicle.
12. Furthermore, definition of "light motor vehicle", as given in Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, reads as under:
"light motor vehicle" means a transport vehicle or omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or First Appeal No.139 of 2020 9 tractor or road roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed 7500 kilograms."
The above reproduced definition of 'light motor vehicle' includes transport vehicle, a motor car or tractor or road roller, the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7500 kilograms. Admittedly, the unladen weight of the tractor, in question, is much less than 7500 kgs. As such, it comes under the category of 'light motor vehicle'. Therefore, the complainant was having a valid and effective driving to drive the tractor, in question, at the time of accident; which is valid up to 30.10.2033.
13. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed and the impugned order is modified to the extent that the opposite parties shall pay the claim of ₹38,879/- (Rupees Thirty Eight Thousand Eight Hundred and Seventy Nine only), along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum after deducting 90 days from the date of lodging the claim till realization. Except this modification, the remaining part of the impugned order is upheld.
14. The appellants had deposited a sum of ₹25,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal. They deposited another amount of ₹33,060/-, vide receipt dated 26.06.2020, in compliance of order dated 13.03.2020. Both these amounts, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the Registry to the District Commission forthwith. The respondent/complainant may approach the District Commission for the release of the amount, as per his entitlement, and the District Commission may pass the appropriate First Appeal No.139 of 2020 10 order in this regard and the remaining amount, if any, be refunded to the appellants/opposite parties after the expiry of limitation period in accordance with law.
15. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases and pandemic of COVID-19.
(JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL) PRESIDENT (RAJINDER KUMAR GOYAL) MEMBER (MRS. KIRAN SIBAL) MEMBER January 27, 2021.
(Gurmeet S)