State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
National Insurance Company Limited vs Hanuman Prasad Agrawal on 7 February, 2014
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PANDRI, RAIPUR(C.G.)
Appeal No.FA/13/190
Instituted on : 11.03.2013
National Insurance Company Limited,
Through : Its Branch Manager,
Branch Office : Minu Complex, Koshabadi,
Korba (C.G.), District Korba (C.G.) ... Appellant.
Vs.
Hanuman Prasad Agrawal,
S/o Bhairomal, R/o : Bamnidih, P.S. & Tah. Bamnidih,
District : Janjgir, Champa (C.G.) ... Respondent.
PRESENT: -
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE MISS HEENA THAKKAR, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES: -
Shri Dashrath Gupta, Advocate for appellant. Shri Avinash Mishra, Advocate for respondent.
ORAL ORDER Dated : 07/02/2014 This appeal is directed against the order dated 08.02.2013, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Janjgir (C.G) (henceforth "District Forum") in Complaint Case No.09/2009. By the impugned order, learned District Forum, has partly allowed the complaint of the respondent/complainant and directed the appellant/O.P. to pay a sum of Rs.60,000/- to the respondent/complainant within two months from the date of order, along with interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of repudiation of claim i.e. 14.03.2007 till date of payment, otherwise the aforesaid amount would be payable along with interest @ 9% p.a. The //2 // District Forum, has further directed the appellant/O.P. to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.1,000/- as cost of litigation to the respondent/complainant.
2. Brief stated the facts of the complaint filed before the District Forum are : that the respondent/complainant is owner of maruti van bearing registration No.M.H.31-H-8944 and the vehicle was insured with appellant/O.P./Insurance Company for the period from 01.01.2005 to 31.12.2005. On 19.05.2005, when the driver of the vehicle Shiv Kumar Chouhan, had started the vehicle, suddenly the vehicle caught fire and due to fire the vehicle, was extensively damaged and the respondent/complainant suffered loss to the tune of near about Rs.1,00,000/-. The respondent/complainant lodged First Information Report on 20.05.2005 at concerned Police Station and also intimated the appellant/Insurance Company regarding the incident. The respondent / complainant submitted claim form before the appellant/Insurance Company, but the appellant/Insurance Company had repudiated the claim of the appellant/complainant on 14.03.2007 on the ground that driver of the vehicle in question Mr. Shiv Kumar Chouhan, was not having valid driving licence and R.T.O. Bilaspur issued letter to the effect that driving licence, which was possessed by the driver, was not issued by R.T.O. Bilaspur (C.G.), hence the complaint filed consumer complaint before the District Forum, Janjgir (C.G.).
//3 //
3. The appellant/Insurance Company filed written version before the District Forum and averred that the respondent/complainant used LPG Gas Kit in the vehicle. Due to LPG Gas Kit, the vehicle caught fire and due to use of LPG in the vehicle, the appellant/O.P. is not liable for paying any compensation and the respondent/complainant has violated terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Therefore, the appellant/Insurance Company has rightly repudiated the claim of the respondent/complainant.
4. Learned District Forum, after appreciation of material available before it, allowed the complaint in part and awarded compensation to the respondent/complainant, as mentioned hereinabove in paragraph no.1 of this order.
5. Shri Dashrath Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant/O.P./Insurance Company argued that driver of the vehicle in question Mr. Shiv Kumar Chouhan, was not having valid driving licence. The LPG Gas Cylinder was being used in place of Petrol for running the vehicle in question, therefore, the respondent/complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, hence, the appellant/O.P. is not liable to compensate the respondent/complainant and learned District Forum has erroneously allowed in part the complaint of the respondent/complainant and awarded compensation to him. The order passed by the learned District Forum, is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside.
//4 //
6. Shri Avinash Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent/complainant supported the impugned order.
7. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and have also perused the record of the District Forum.
8. The respondent/complainant filed documents i.e. copy of Rojnamcha Sanha No.641 dated 20.05.2005 & Rojnamcha Sanha No.773 dated 24.06.2005 (Annexure A-1), letter dated 14.03.2007 sent by the Branch Manager of the appellant/O.P./Insurance Company to the respondent/complainant Hanuman Prasad Agrawal (Annexure A-2), letter dated 16.03.2007 sent by the respondent/complainant to the Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd., Korba (Annexure A-3), letter dated 29.06.2007 sent by District Transport Authority, Janjgir Champa to driver Mr. Shiv Kumar ( Annexure A-4). Document Annexure A-5 to Annexure A-7 is copy of the insurance policy.
9. The appellant/Insurance Company had not filed any document in support of its case.
10. Document Annexure A/2 is letter dated 14.03.2007 sent by Shri A. Banerjee, Branch Manager of National Insurance Company Limited to respondent/complainant Hanuman Prasad Agrawal. In the said document it is mentioned that "however on our verification of Driving Licence No.S-1391/BSP/02 issued by LA Bilaspur. It is confirmed by them that the said DL (Driving Licence) is not issued by them. Under //5 // this circumstances our liability does not arise and we are regretfully compelled to repudiate the claim and closed the file as "NO CLAIM."
11. From bare perusal of document Annexure A/2, it appears that the only ground of repudiation of the claim of the respondent/complainant mentioned by the appellant/O.P./Insurance Company in the said letter is that the driver Shiv Kumar Chouhan was not possessing valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. The respondent/complainant filed a document A-4 which is a letter issued by District Transport Officer, Janjgir Champa (C.G). In said letter it is mentioned that driving licence was issued for Light Motor Vehicle (LMV), non transport vehicle only and it was valid for the period from 02.11.2002 to 02.11.2022. Looking to the above document, it appears that driver Shiv Kumar Chouhan, was possessing driving licence and he was entitled to drive LMV. The vehicle in question is maruti van, which comes in the category of LMV and driver was possessing valid driving licence.
12. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company argued that the respondent/complainant was using LPG Gas Cylinder in his vehicle at the place of Petrol, but in the repudiation letter (document Annexure A-2), the appellant/Insurance Company did mention regarding use of LPG Gas Cylinder in the vehicle.
//6 //
13. The date and time of incident was 19.05.2005 at about 2 a.m. (mid night) and report was lodged on 20.05.2005. It appears that the incident was reported by the respondent/complainant at Police Station, Saragaon, District Janjgir Champa on the next day of incident. The document Annexure A-1 is Rojnanmcha Sanha no.641 dated 20.05.2005. In the said Rojnamcha Sanha, it is mentioned that the vehicle suddenly caught fire. In the Police Station, Saragaon, District Janjgir Champa, report aagjani no.9/05, was also recorded.
14. Looking to the document A/2, it appears that the respondent/complainant informed the appellant/Insurance Company regarding the incident. In the letter of repudiation of the appellant/Insurance Company dated 14.03.2007, there is mention of FIR dated 20.05.2005. It appears that the respondent / complainant informed the Insurance Company immediately regarding the incident.
15. From bare perusal of document of Rojnanmcha Sanha No.773 dated 24/06/2005, it appears that Police investigated the matter and inspected the vehicle. It also appears that Police prepared nuksani panchanama. The appellant/Insurance Company could obtain copy of panchanama from the concerned Police Station and it also obtained mauka naksha panchanama (site map) which shows the cause of accident, but appellant/Insurance company could not file any document in its favour. Therefore, it cannot be said that the vehicle caught fire due to use of LPG gas kit and the appellant/Insurance Company could not prove that the //7 // respondent/complainant was using LPG Gas Cylinder in his vehicle at the place of petrol.
16. Therefore, we are of the view that learned District Forum has rightly reached to the conclusion that the appellant/Insurance Company has wrongly repudiated the claim of the respondent/complainant and allowed the claim of the respondent/complainant on non-standard basis.
17. In the insurance policy, the Insured Declared Value of the vehicle was mentioned as Rs.80,000/- and on non-standard basis the District Forum awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.60,000/- which is just and proper and therefore, the finding recorded by the District Forum, does not suffer from any infirmity or irregularity and does call for any inference by this Commission.
18. Therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant/O.P., being devoid of any merits, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to the cost of this appeal.
(Justice R.S. Sharma) (Ms. Heena Thakkar)
President Member
/02/2014 /02/2014