State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Satar Ali vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Another on 6 February, 2024
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No.908 of 2022
Date of Institution : 26.10.2022
Date of Decision : 06.02.2024
Satar Ali S/o Sh. Bhana Khan, resident of Village Akbarpur Khudal,
P.O. Kahangarh, Tehsil Budhladha, District Mansa (Punjab).
........Appellant/Complainant
Versus
1. New India Assurance Company Limited, Old Court Road,
Mansa, through its Branch Manager.
2. The New India Assurance Company Limited, Rama Mill
Compound, Near Ambedkar Chowk, Samana (Patiala), through
its Branch Manager.
.....Respondents/Opposite Parties
Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer
Protection Act, 2019 to challenge the
order dated 18.08.2022 passed by the
District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, Mansa in C.C. No.53 of 2021.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, President
Ms. Simarjot Kaur, Member
Present:-
For the Appellant : Sh. Sanjeev Goyal, Advocate For the Respondents : Sh. R.C. Gupta, Advocate 2 First Appeal No.908 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 present Appeal has been filed by the Appellant Satar Ali under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (in short the 'Act') against the order dated 18.08.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mansa in Consumer Complaint No.53 of 2021 whereby the Complaint had been dismissed.
2. Briefly, the facts of the case which are necessary for disposal of the present Appeal are that the Appellant/Complainant got insured his vehicle i.e. Tata Sigma 4623 bearing No.PB-03BA-3766 from the Respondent for the period w.e.f. from 13.07.2020 to 12.07.2021. However, said vehicle met with an accident on 04.09.2020 at about 12:00 p.m. Said vehicle was taken to the workshop of Bansal Service Station Patran where estimate of repair to the tune of Rs.13,64,493/- was prepared. The Respondent had appointed the Surveyor to assess the loss, who assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.4,41,918.68 paisa. Thereafter, the claim of the Complainant was repudiated by the OPs vide letter dated 05.02.2021 on the ground that the GR was not verified as the Invoice No.8598 from Elite Minig Safidon was not in existence and by considering the Rules and Regulations of the Company, no claim was found to be 3 First Appeal No.908 of 2022 paid. It was further mentioned in the Complaint that it was a case of 'deficiency in service' and the Complaint was filed by the Complainant before the District Commission by claiming the loss as suffered by the Appellant/Complainant alongwith compensation and litigation expenses.
3. Upon issuing notice to the Respondents/OPs they appeared through Counsel and filed written statement wherein certain preliminary objections were raised mentioning that the Complainant had no cause of action and the Complaint was totally false and frivolous and also that GR produced by the Complainant was not in existence and accordingly claim had rightly been repudiated as per the terms and conditions of the policy. The other averments made in the Complaint were also denied.
4. On consideration of the averments made in the Complaint and reply thereof and also on hearing the oral arguments raised by Counsel representing both the parties and also on considering the documents/evidence available on record, the Complaint filed by the Complainant was dismissed vide order dated 18.08.2022 by the District Commission.
5. Being aggrieved by said order dated 18.08.2022 the Complainant has filed the present Appeal by raising a number of grounds.
6. Mr. Sanjeev Goyal Advocate, learned Counsel for the Appellant/Complainant has vehemently argued that the District 4 First Appeal No.908 of 2022 Commission had wrongly and illegally dismissed the Complaint simply on the ground that the Complainant had made the changes in the goods receipt invoice No.8596 dated 03.09.2020. Further it has been submitted that the findings recorded by the District Commission are totally wrong and illegal as the Complainant had no concern with said GR's No.8596 dated 03.09.2020. Said receipt had been wrongly prepared and had been placed on record by the Respondent just to defeat the genuine claim of the Appellant. Learned Counsel has further submitted that the claim had been repudiated as the GR No.8598 could not be verified whereas the Respondent had placed on record some other GR No.8596 whereas the Appellant/Complainant had no concern with the alleged GR No.8596 dated 03.09.2020 and it has wrongly been relied upon by the District Commission. Further it has been submitted by learned Counsel for the Appellant that a specific allegation was made that on the date of accident, the vehicle was overloaded whereas this averment was never made in the reply and as such there was no occasion for overloading the vehicle. Further it has been submitted that the District Commission had failed to appreciate a material fact that the claim of the Complainant had wrongly been repudiated and due to which the Complainant had suffered loss of Rs.7,71,918/- and as such the Complainant was entitled to get the claim amount. Even the Surveyor of the Respondent had wrongly assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.4,41,918.68 and the Complainant is entitled to get the amount of loss so suffered by him but still the Complaint had been dismissed by 5 First Appeal No.908 of 2022 the District Commission. At the end, learned Counsel has submitted that in case, it has been proved that the vehicle of the Complainant was overloaded and there was any breach of condition of the Insurance Policy then the Complainant was entitled to get the claim on non-standard basis i.e. 75%. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has also relied upon following judgments in support of his arguments:-
(i) Lakhmi Chand Vs. Reliance General Insurance, 2016(1)R.C.R. (Civil)794
(ii) Amalendu Sahoo Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 2010 (4) SCC 536
(iii) IFFCO Tokio GIC Vs. Anil, 2022 (1) CPJ 237
(iv) National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ram Surat Paswan, F.A. No.549 of 2020, decided on 15.01.2021
(v) Saurashtra Chemicals Limited Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2020 ACJ 653
(vi) Nirbhay Singh Chauhan Vs. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance, 2021(1)C.P.R.-78
(vii) M/s Ahaar Feeds Vs. Future Generali India Insurance Company, RP No.1078 of 2017, dated 18.01.2019
(viii) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Anil Sharma, RP No.2684 of 2010, decided on 26.08.2020 6 First Appeal No.908 of 2022
(ix) Shriram General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Jamshed & another, 2017(4)CPJ-513.
7. Mr. R.C. Gupta Advocate, learned Counsel for the Respondents has submitted that the order passed by the District Commission is based on proper consideration of averments made in the Complaint as well as reply and detailed findings have been recorded by the District Commission which requires no consideration.
8. Learned Counsel for the Respondent has also relied upon judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court of cases; (i)National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Balraj and others, 2012(1) R.C.R. (Civil) 898, (ii) National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Balraj & others and (iii) Reliance General Insurance Company Limited & others Vs. Salochana Devi & others in support of his arguments.
9. Undisputedly, the vehicle of the Appellant/Complainant was insured for the period w.e.f. 13.07.2020 to 12.07.2021 and accident had occurred on 04.09.2020 at about 12 p.m. The vehicle met with an accident and thereafter it was taken to workshop where estimate was prepared. The Surveyor was appointed who assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.4,41,918.68. However, the claim had been repudiated vide letter dated 05.02.2021on the ground that the GR was not verified as the Elite Mining Safidon was not in existence and on that basis it was repudiated that no claim was there. As per the version of the Respondent, the claim was not genuine as the GR so 7 First Appeal No.908 of 2022 produced by the Complainant was not in existence and as per the terms and conditions of the policy, the claim was not maintainable. From perusal of letter of repudiation, it is apparent that the claim was closed as 'No Claim' as the GR No.8598 could not be verified whereas the Surveyor in his letter dated 12.12.2020 (Ex.OP-3) had sent the report GR No.8596 not GR No.8598. As per the version of the Appellant/Complainant there was no concern of alleged GR No.8596 with the Appellant/Complainant but the District Commission has not considered this aspect about the genuineness of the GR and had dismissed the complaint only on this ground. One more ground has also been raised that there are specific allegations of the Respondent/OP that on the date of accident, the vehicle was overloaded whereas no such averment had been made by the Respondent/OP in the reply filed before the District Commission. The District Commission while deciding the Complaint had not taken into consideration these aspects and order has been passed without considering these averments and the stand taken by both the sides.
10. As per the version of the Insurance Company, the said GR could not be verified but the District Commission has dismissed the Complaint by relying upon the said GR. The Surveyor of the Company had shown its inability to verify GR No.8596 dated 03.09.2020 vide its letter dated 12.12.2020 (Ex.OP-3) and advised the Insurance Company for further verification of GR at the site (Village Gumthala, District Yamuna Nagar). The relevant portion of 8 First Appeal No.908 of 2022 the letter dated 12.12.2020 written by the Surveyor to the Insurance Company is relevant which is reproduced as under:-
"I visited the address (Provided in G.R) of consigner on dated 03/12/2020 but I did not find any physical office of the consigner and then I contacted insured Mr. Satar Ali (Consignee) and asked from him about the same & he informed me as under:-
1) There is no physical office of M/s Elite Mining Corporation at Safidon. He loaded the Goods (Sand) from Site Vill. Gumthala Distt. Yamuna Nagar and G.R. was issued from site.
2) Further verification of G.R. may be conducted at Site (Vill. Gumthala Distt. Yamuna Nagar).
The complainant had answered the query of the Surveyor that verification of G.R. be conducted at the site i.e. Village Gumthala, District Yamuna Nagar. The Insurance Company had failed to get verify the same from the Site as there was no evidence available on record to this effect. The District Commission while dismissing the complaint had failed to consider the above said aspects of the case whereas it should have been taken into consideration by the District Commission before dismissing the complaint.
11. In view of observations and reasons as mentioned above we find merit in the contentions raised by learned Counsel for the Appellant as such the Appeal is allowed and impugned order passed by the District Commission is set aside and the case is 9 First Appeal No.908 of 2022 remanded to the District Commission for fresh decision after considering these observations and by hearing both the parties and giving opportunity to both the parties to put up their respective stand in respect of observations and documents which have not been mentioned in the order. The District Commission is also directed to make all efforts to decide the Complaint preferably not more than 2 months from the date of appearance of both the parties. The parties are directed to appear before the District Commission on 27.03.2024.
12. Since the main case is decided, the pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.
13. The Appeal could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY) PRESIDENT (SIMARJOT KAUR) MEMBER February 06, 2024 (MM)