National Consumer Disputes Redressal
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Satpal Singh & Anr. on 1 April, 2014
NATIONAL
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
REVISION PETITION
NO. 3165-3166 OF 2013
(From order dated 14.05.2013 in First
Appeal No. 644 of 2008 of the
Punjab State Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Chandigarh)
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
SCO
109-111
Sector
17-D, Chandigarh Petitioner
Versus
1. Satpal Singh
R/o Katcha Goniana
Road
Street No. 25 Muktsar, Dist. Muktsar
Punjab
2. Shri Ram Transport Finance Limited
Tinkoni Chowk
Goniana Road,
Bhatinda
Through its:
Managing Director Respondents
BEFORE:
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE J.M.MALIK, PRESIDING
MEMBER
HONBLE DR. S.M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER
For the Petitioner : Ms. Neerja Sachdeva, Advocate
For the Respondent No.1 : Mr. Narendera , Advocate
Mr. Deepak Jain, Advocate
For the Respondent No. 2 : Nemo
PRONOUNCED ON 1st APRIL, 2014
ORDER
PER DR. S.M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER
1. This revision petition has been filed against the order of State Commission which dismissed the First Appeal No. 644 of 2008 filed by the Petitioner by affirming the order dated 23.04.2008 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, (in short, District Forum).
2. The facts in brief:
The Complainant, Sh. Satpal Singh and his father, Joginder Singh purchased a Eicher Truck Medium by paying a sum of Rs.7.67 lakhs, for his livelihood. It was financed by M/s Shriram Finance limited, Bhatinda, OP-2 and was insured with Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, the Petitioner/OP-3. The financers obtained signatures of the Complainant on 8 blank cheques of Punjab National Bank, towards the payment of instalments. The vehicle was insured by OP-3, effective from 15.05.2006 to 14.06.2007, but no policy or terms and conditions, were supplied. The Complainant paid Rs.77, 000/- in cash and paid each instalment in the sum of Rs.18,272/- to the financer, in order to clear the finance amount. The said truck met with an accident, on 01.09.2006, and Sh. Joginder Singh, father of complainant, died on the spot and the vehicle was badly damaged. On the same day, a FIR was registered at Police Station, Gandoj, Rajasthan. Intimation of the incident was given to insurance company(OP-3) which OP-3 appointed, Sh. Kamlesh Barmera, Surveyor & Loss Assessor, who conducted the sport survey and conveyed that vehicle is totally damaged and not repairable, and that Insurance Company will have to pay full insured amount. Complainant spent a sum of Rs.21,900/- towards hiring charges to bring salvage of damaged vehicle. Thereafter, repeated attempts were made for the claim of compensation for damaged vehicle and on account of death of his father (driver), but OP turned a deaf ear. Hence, the complainant filed a complaint, before the District Forum, Bhatinda, seeking direction to OP-1 to 3 to pay Rs.7,30,000/- on account of vehicle loss, Rs.8,00,000/- on account of death of Driver-his father, Joginder Singh, and Rs.2, 29,911/- towards other claims, under different heads.
3. The District Forum, after hearing the Counsel for the parties and going through the record, observed that Sh. Joginder Singh, who was driving the truck, was neither the paid driver of Satpal Singh nor was he, his employee and so the insurance company is not liable to indemnify, the Complainant on account of the death of his father. It further observed that it was a case of total loss and the insured declared value is payable and held OP Nos. 1 to 3 liable to pay the insured declared value assessed at Rs.7,30,000/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from 21.12.2006, till payment. It also awarded a sum of Rs.2,511/- as fee paid to the surveyor, along with costs of Rs.2,000/-. The complainant was directed to issue letter of subrogation in favour of OP Nos.1 to 3 and to deliver the salvage to OP No. 3, within one month from the receipt of copy of the order.
4. OPs shall pay Rs.7,30,000/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from 21.12.2006, till payment to Shri Ram Transport Finance Limited (OP-4/Respondent 2), which it would adjust the amount in the loan account and excess, if any, shall be paid to the complainant.
5. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 23.04.2008, the Petitioner/OP-1 filed first appeal for setting aside of the order of District Forum , while the complainant filed First appeal FA/131/2009 for enhancement of compensation.
6. The State Commission dismissed both the appeals. Aggrieved by the order of State Commission, the Petitioner/Insurance Co. filed this revision petition.
7. We have heard the counsels of both the parties. The Counsel for the complainant argued that, after the accident, FIR was registered and intimation was given to insurance company (OP-3) and OP-3 appointed Sh. Kamlesh Barmera, Surveyor & Loss Assessor, who conducted the sport survey and gave report (Ex.C-18). The said report did not mention that the vehicle is repairable. But, the surveyor in his affidavit Ex.R-18 deposed that the vehicle can be repaired and will be roadworthy, after repairs. The Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the complainant is not a consumer, as the truck was used for commercial purpose, by plying it for hire and reward. The vehicle was not having valid registration, fitness certificate and route permit, hence complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the policy. Also, the personal accidental death claim is not maintainable, because Joginder Singh cannot be termed as owner/driver, as per Indian Motor Tariff. He further argued that the complainant has not co-operated with OP-3 and failed to submit the required documents, inspite of repeated reminders. The complainant did not produce the final survey report, hence the case was closed as No Claim. Therefore, there was no deficiency of service by OP-3.
8. We have perused the documents on file, the letters/correspondences exchanged between the parties. It is an admitted fact that Truck bearing Registration No. RJ-13-GA-1246 was insured by OPs, vide cover note no. 441941 effective from 15.06.2006 to 14.06.2007, subject to IMT (Indian Motor Tariff) Condition Nos. 37A, 21, 37, 5, besides other conditions. However, counsel for Petitioner submitted that terms and conditions of the policy were supplied to the Complainant, after the issuance of cover note. On the contrary, counsel for the Complainant argued that only insurance cover note was supplied, and the policy, along with its terms and conditions, was not issued to him.
9. We are of considered view that, onus of proof lies upon OP Nos. 1 to 3 to prove that policy, along with terms and conditions, was supplied to the Complainant. OPs had not produced any cogent evidence in this regard. The Counsel for the Petitioner drew our attention to the relevant portion of the cover note, which reads as :- The insurance under this policy is subject to conditions, clauses, warranties, exclusions, IMTs and OIC endorsements, mentioned herein above, which are available on Companys website: www.orientalinsurance.org.in or on demand from the policy issuing office.
10. Its a ridiculous attempt, made by the Counsel for the OP. It seems every driver/insured is a computer savvy..!! It proves that OP-1, did not supply the terms and conditions, with cover note. The Counsel for OP-1 argued that the intimation of the accident was given to the company, after a delay of 19 days, but the Counsel failed to produce any cogent evidence or document to prove this contention. Even, the affidavit of Surveyor, appears to be an afterthought, improvement and just to frustrate the claim. After the spot survey, the Insurance Company was supposed to appoint a Surveyor and loss assessor for final survey, but it never appointed. OP-3 who, knowingly, wrote a letter (Ex.R-13) and sought information about the Surveyor, who has conducted the final survey. Thereafter, petitioner/OP-3 concluded it, as no claim, without any basis. This act of Petitioner, is arbitrary and is deficiency in service. It amount to unfair trade practice.
11. Therefore, we dismiss this revision petition. No orders as to costs.
...
(J. M. MALIK, J.) PRESIDING MEMBER ...
(S. M. KANTIKAR) MEMBER Mss/13