State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Multiform Logistics Pvt. Ltd. on 26 April, 2023
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR -37 A, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No.960 of 2022
Date of Institution : 10.11.2022
Reserved on : 11.04.2023
Date of Decision : 26.04.2023
1. Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd., Registered Office at
Iffco Sadan, C-1, District Center, Saket, New Delhi, through its
Managing Director.
2. Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd., having its branch office
at 1st Floor, Sohan Singh Complex, Near Railway Crossing,
Shastri Nagar, Ludhiana, Punjab-141002, through its Branch
Manager.
Now, IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd., through its
Authorised Signatory, IFFCO Tower-II, 4th Floor, Plot No.3,
Sector-29, Gurugram-122001.
.....Appellants/Opposite Parties
Versus
M/s Multiform Logistics Pvt. Ltd., Fleet Owners and Transport
Contractors, Registered Office at Plot No.553, Lane No.3, G.T.B.
Nagar, Mundian Kalan, Ludhiana, through its Director Shri Krishan
Pal Singh, authorized vide resolution passed in the meeting of the
Board of Directors held on 28.11.2018.
.....Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal under Section 41 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against
the order dated 11.07.2022 passed by the
District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, Ludhiana.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, President
Ms. Simarjot Kaur, Member
Present:-
For the appellants : Sh. Yogesh Gupta, Advocate For the respondent : Sh. Chandandeep Singh, Advocate 2 First Appeal No.960 of 2022
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 JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY, PRESIDENT:-
The appellants/opposite parties i.e. Iffco-Tokio GIC Limited and another, through its Chief Manager have filed the present appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (in short the 'Act') to challenge the impugned order dated 11.07.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ludhiana (hereinafter referred as the "District Commission") in C.C. No.23 of 2019, whereby the complaint filed by the respondent-complainant was allowed.
2. There was a delay of 17 days in filing the appeal. M.A. No.1503 of 2022 was filed for condonation of delay which was supported by an affidavit. Said delay was condoned vide order dated 14.11.2022 by this Commission and said M.A. was disposed of.
3. It would be apposite to mention that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District Commission.
4. Briefly, the facts of the case which are necessary for disposal of the present appeal are that the complainant i.e. M/s Multiform Logistics Private Limited, through its Director approached the District Commission with the grievance that the complainant- 3 First Appeal No.960 of 2022 Company got its Trailer No.PB-08-CP-9329 insured from OPs for an IDV of Rs.8,10,000/- vide package policy No.50177858 for the period w.e.f. 29.01.2017 to 28.01.2018. A premium of Rs.40,615.75 was paid. The Trailer was being used for loading the goods on 29.07.2017 and some defect occurred on the way. The driver of the Trailer parked Tralla/Trolley at place known as Nirmal Weighing Bridge and he took the vehicle (Horse) to Transport Nagar, Ludhiana for repair. It was Sunday on 30.07.2017 and on the next date i.e. 31.07.2017 at 11 a.m. the driver Gurdeep Singh went to the place where the vehicle was parked but it was not found. Driver made all efforts to search out the same but it was not traced out. Further it was mentioned in the complaint that an intimation in this regard was sent to the Police on the same day and FIR No.0289 dated 22.11.2017 under Section 379 IPC was registered on the basis of statement of Director of the Company namely Krishan Pal Singh. It was further mentioned in the complaint that the price of said Tralla/Trolley was Rs.7,70,000/-. All relevant documents were supplied. Investigator to investigate the claim was appointed but much more time was taken in the investigation and ultimately the claim was repudiated vide letter dated 31.08.2018.
5. Stating to be a case of 'deficiency of service' on the part of the OPs and for setting aside the repudiation letter dated 31.08.2018, the prayer was made in the complaint for issuance of directions to the OPs to reimburse the claim of Rs.7,70,000/- being the value of Trailer alongwith interest @12% per annum and also to 4 First Appeal No.960 of 2022 pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- on account of 'deficiency of service' and for causing mental tension, pain, tension and agony to the complainant.
6. The complaint was opposed by the OPs by way of filing written statement wherein the averments made in the complaint were denied. It was also mentioned in the reply that the claim was not found to be payable and it was rightly repudiated as the policy was not extended to the Trailer attached to the vehicle and for the risk even the premium was not paid for insurance. It was also specifically mentioned in the policy. It was further mentioned in the reply that the OPs were not bound to pay the claim of theft of the Trailer as it was not insured under the policy. The other averments made in the complaint were also specifically denied.
7. By considering the contents of complaint, reply thereof and also after hearing the arguments raised from both the sides, the complaint was allowed vide order dated 11.07.2022. The relevant portion of order dated 11.07.2022 as mentioned in para 12 is re- produced as under:-
"12. As a result of above discussion, the complaint is allowed with direction to the OPs to reimburse the claim in respect of the theft of the trailer strictly as per terms and conditions of the policy to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. The OPs shall further pay a composite cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) to the complainant. Compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Copies of the order be supplied 5 First Appeal No.960 of 2022 to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to record room."
8. The appellants/OPs being aggrieved by the order dated 11.07.2022 passed by the District Commission have challenged the order passed by the District Commission before this Commission by way of filing the appeal.
9. Mr. Yogesh Gupta Advocate, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the District Commission has allowed the complaint without taking into consideration the reply as well as the arguments raised there that the insurance policy was issued only for the towing vehicle but it was not extended to any Trailer attached to it and no premium whatsoever was paid for insuring the Trailer as is clear from the policy itself. Learned counsel also submits that the IDV of the registered towing vehicle was mentioned as Rs.8,10,000/- in the policy and the basic OD (own damage) premium of the same was mentioned as Rs.22,291.20/- whereas the IDV of the Trailer was mentioned as Zero and basic Trailer OD premium was also mentioned as Zero. These words have clearly indicated that no insurance was obtained for the Trailer. The respondent/complainant was not entitled for any claim as it was not covered under the policy. Learned counsel also submits that the wrong findings have been recorded in the impugned order which is contrary to provisions of Law. The Indian Motor Tariff has laid down that the policy covering towing vehicles may be extended by including Trailer or by issuing separate policy to cover the Trailer and for that purpose premium was 6 First Appeal No.960 of 2022 required to be paid at the scheduled rates as mentioned therein. Learned counsel further submits that no premium was paid separately for the Trailer or jointly with the Towing Vehicle and as such the loss of Trailer was not covered under the policy. Learned counsel further submits that it is a settled position of law that when no consideration has been paid to the appellants/OPs for the Trailer, the complaint was not even maintainable for the alleged loss of Trailer. Learned counsel further submits that the District Commission has failed to explain as to how the Trailer without any payment of premium would be insured. The District Commission has wrongly relied upon case law as cited in the impugned order but without any discussion or by considering the facts and circumstances of the case. At the end learned counsel submits that the District Commission has wrongly directed the appellants to reimburse the claim in respect of theft of the Trailer strictly as per the terms and conditions of the policy whereas the said directions are beyond the terms and conditions of the policy since IDV of the Trailer is mentioned as Zero in the insurance policy. The value of the Trailer has been reflected as Rs.7,70,000/- whereas as per the policy the IDV of the insured vehicle is Rs.8,10,000/-. This fact clearly reflects that the entire value of towing vehicle is only Rs.40,000/-. Learned counsel has relied upon the judgments in support of his arguments as follow:-
1. "National Insurance Company Limited Vs. The Chief Electoral Officer & others" Civil Appeal No.4769 of 2022, decided on 08.02.2023 (SC) 7 First Appeal No.960 of 2022
2. "Shree Ambica Medical Stores & others Vs. The Surat People's Co-operative Bank Limited & others" 2020 AIR (SC)803
3. "New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Ajambar Bhuian and others" Civil Appeal No.426 of 2020, decided on 20.01.2020 (SC)
4. "Tata AIG Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & another Vs. Kuldeep Kumar" Revision Petition No.2278 of 2017, decided on 27.02.2023 (NC)
5. "United India Insurance Co. Limited Vs. Dalas Biotech Limited" Revision Petition No.2096 of 2013, decided on 08.04.2022 (NC)
6. "Sunita Bhalla Vs. United India Insurance Co.
Limited" Revision Petition No.2121 of 2019- 2020(1) C.P.R.- 493
7. "National Insurance Company Vs. Rameshwar Lal"
2019(4)C.P.R.-133 (NC)
10. Mr. Chandandeep Singh Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent/complainant submits that the order passed by the District Commission is based on proper appreciation of evidence and by considering the facts and evidence produced by both the sides. The order passed by the District Commission is detailed one. Learned counsel also submits that not only detailed findings have been given but certain judgments of different courts have also been relied upon by the District Commission. In one judgment, it has been held that any equipment attached to the Tractor is a part of Tractor and is covered under the policy. A number of judgments have been mentioned by giving the detailed findings wherein a distinction has been made by relying upon the definition of Motor Vehicles Act and definition of Trailer to show as to whether it is to be included or excluded.8
First Appeal No.960 of 2022
11. Heard the arguments raised by learned counsel for both the parties and we have also carefully perused the documents available on the file and impugned order passed by the District Commission and also the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the parties.
12. Facts relating to filing of complaint before the District Commission, reply thereof and passing of impugned order dated 11.07.2022 by the District Commission and thereafter filing of appeal by the appellants/OPs being aggrieved by said order dated 11.07.2022 are not in dispute. Undisputed facts of the case are that the vehicle was insured with OPs for an IDV of Rs.8,10,000/- vide package policy for the period w.e.f. 29.01.2017 to 28.01.2018. Due to some defect in the vehicle on 29.07.2017 and the driver parked the Trailer at Nirmal Weighing Bridge as there was no parking space in front of the shop of the mechanic due to 40 feet length of the Trailer. The driver took the Vehicle (Horse) for repair. The Trailer was stolen from that place and inspite of making efforts it was not traced out. FIR No.0289 was registered on 22.11.2017 under Section 379 IPC. The Investigator investigated the claim. The claim was not settled within a period of one year and thereafter it was repudiated vide letter dated 21.08.2018.
13. As per version of respondent/complainant the Trailer cannot be treated as separate vehicle and it is treated as part of Horse Vehicle with which it is attached and for that purpose the 9 First Appeal No.960 of 2022 Trailer was not required to be insured separately. Section 2(46) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 defines the Trailer which is reproduced as under:-
"2(46) "trailer" means any vehicle, other than a semi-trailer, a goods carriage, an educational institution bus or a private service vehicle;"
The Trailer may be drawn by Motor Vehicle but in case both the Tractor and Trailer are taken together, it becomes a transport vehicle. Any equipment attached to the towing vehicle is considered a part of towing vehicle and the same is covered under the insurance policy. In a number of judgments, it has been held that the trolley not being a motor vehicle is not required to be separately insured and for the liability arising out of accident with the trolley attached to the tractor, the insurer would be liable to indemnify the insured.
14. However, learned counsel for the insurance policy has taken a ground that Trailer was not covered under the policy as no premium whatsoever was paid separately qua the Trailer and the loss occurred due to theft cannot be indemnified being not covered under the policy. During the course of arguments, it has been pointed out by learned counsel for the insurance company that even in the certificate-cum-policy the IDV has been mentioned as Rs.8,10,000/- whereas IDV of Trailer is mentioned as "zero". It shows that no insurance was obtained for the Trailer. The counsel for the OPs has relied upon Indian Motor Tariff which provides separate tariff for the 10 First Appeal No.960 of 2022 Trailers. Section B of Indian Motor Tariff provides that the policy covering the towing vehicle may be extended to include the Trailer or a separate policy for the Trailer, the premium is to be charged at the scheduled of rate as mentioned therein. As per Indian Motor Tariff, the Trailers are either to be separately insured or the insurance of the tractor can be covered with the towing vehicle but in both the cases a premium is required to be paid separately in respect of the Trailer.
15. As per ratio of the judgments which have been relied upon by the District Commission it has been held that the Trailer in itself cannot be said to be a transport vehicle. A vehicle becomes a goods carrier vehicle only if it is attached to a Trailer which is intended to carry goods. The District Commission has specifically held that the carrier vehicle would not have been completed without a Trailer in case no premium had been paid qua the Trailer no IDV of the Trailer is mentioned in the policy. It has also been mentioned in the order that Trailer would be deemed to have been covered under the policy and the insurer cannot escape from its liability to indemnify the insured only on the ground that Trailer was not separately insured. The District Commission has allowed the complaint by relying upon judgment of case "Jai Bhagwan & another Vs. Koshalya & others, FAO No.660 of 2010 (O&M) decided on 29.04.2014 by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh as well as of "United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Anita Singhal & others" 2011(3)RCR (Civil)-520, by holding that the Trailer was not a vehicle in itself and the carrier 11 First Appeal No.960 of 2022 would not have been complete without the Trailer even if no premium had been shown to be paid qua the Trailer nor any IDV of the Trailer was mentioned in the policy. In the present case the appellants/OPs got investigated the matter from the Investigator, who found that it was a genuine case of theft and he has not mentioned in the report that the Trailer was not insured. The appellants/OPs did not raise any objection to the report submitted by the Investigator. Nowhere it has been mentioned that it was not a case of theft or the Trailer was not purchased or used by the complainant party. Moreover, the insurer has undertaken to compensate the loss suffered by the insured on account of risk covered by the insurance policy. All these factors have been taken into consideration by the District Commission while passing impugned order which is under challenge.
16. It is relevant to mention here that in case a separate policy for Trailer was necessary then it was duty of the agent to inform the complainant about the same at the time of filling up the Proposal Form before issuing the policy. As per guidelines dated 16.03.2015 issued by IRDA, the agent is required to explain the proposer the all features of the policy. The relevant part of said Guidelines is reproduced as under:-
VIII. Code of Conduct.
1(a) Every insurance agent shall,
vi) explain to the prospect the nature of information required in the Proposal Form by the insurer, and also the importance of 12 First Appeal No.960 of 2022 disclosure of material information in the purchase of an insurance contract;
17. Learned counsel for the appellants has not been able to convince this Commission as to how the findings recorded by the District Commission are contrary to evidence or documents produces by both the parties or the terms and conditions of the policy have not been taken into consideration. The District Commission has passed the impugned order by taking into consideration all material facts that the towing vehicle was incomplete without Trailer as said vehicle could not have been used for commercial purpose in absence of Trailer. Towing vehicle is considered commercial vehicle in case the Trailer is used and for that purpose of composite policy is required.
18. In view of above discussion, we do not find any merit in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants as the order passed by the District Commission is based on proper appreciation of evidence available on record and averments made from both the sides. There is no illegality or infirmity in the findings recorded in the order passed by the District Commission.
Accordingly the appeal being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed.
19. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal with this Commission. Said amount, alongwith 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 13 First Appeal No.960 of 2022 the release of the same and the District Commission may pass appropriate order in this regard in accordance with law.
20. Since the main case is decided, the pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.
21. The appeal could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY) PRESIDENT (SIMARJOT KAUR) MEMBER April 26, 2023 (MM)