State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S International Cars & Motors Limited vs The Oriental Insurance Company Limited on 18 April, 2013
FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.352 of 2009.
Date of Institution: 19.03.2009.
Date of Decision: 18.04.2013.
M/s International Cars & Motors Limited, Industrial Area, Amb, District Una
(HP) and having its Administrative Office at Village Chak Gujran, Post Office
Piplanwala, Jalandhar Road, Hoshiarpur (Punjab) through Sh. Malkiat Singh,
Chief Factory Manager, M/s International Cars & Motors Limited.
.....Appellant.
Versus
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Roshan Road, Model Town,
Hoshiarpur, through its Divisional Manager.
...Respondent.
First Appeal against the order dated
06.02.2009 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Hoshiarpur.
Before:-
Shri Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Judicial Member.
Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member.
...................................
Present:- Sh. Suvir Sehgal, Advocate, counsel for the appellant.
Sh. Rahul Sharma, Advocate for Ms V.A. Talwar, Advocate, counsel for the respondent.
----------------------------------------
INDERJIT KAUSHIK, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER:-
M/s International Cars & Motors Limited, appellant/complainant (In short "the appellant") has filed this appeal against the order dated 06.02.2009 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hoshiarpur (in short "the District Forum").
2. Facts in brief are that the appellant filed a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the respondent/opposite party (hereinafter called as "the respondent"), making the averments that it got insured the vehicle MUV Rhino, having First Appeal No.352 of 2009 2 registration No.HPTC-029 with the respondent vide cover note no.108773 dated 16.03.2007. The said vehicle of the appellant met with an accident at village Kot Fatuhi on 29.06.2007 with a motorcycle and in the accident, the persons sitting on the motorcycle were badly injured and they were admitted to D.M.C., Ludhiana. After the accident, the appellant gave information to the respondent and asked about the expenditure to be incurred on the treatment of the injured persons and the respondent told the appellant that the appellant can make the settlement with the injured persons and can pay the amount and the entire amount spent will be paid by the respondent. Acting on the assurance of the respondent, the appellant mutually settled the matter with the injured and paid all the medical expenses of the injured namely Sh. Parmvir Singh S/o Sh. Jarnail Singh and Rajvinder Singh S/o Ajit Singh, both residents of village Kharar Acharwal, District Hoshiarpur, as per compromise dated 04.07.2007.
3. The appellant company paid Rs.15,000/- and Rs.50,000/- in cash. The appellant sent a letter dated 20.07.2007 to the respondent, intimating about the said settlement along with copy of the DDR dated 05.07.2007 and the cover note. The appellant also paid Rs.1,12,040/- through demand draft dated 22.08.2007 and Rs.68,811/- through demand draft dated 31.07.2007 and in all, paid Rs.2,45,851/- against the receipts and the medical bills. The surveyor of the respondent visited the appellant company and inspected the entire record and all the documents were supplied but till date, the said claim amount of Rs.2,45,851/- was not settled which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the respondent and the appellant also suffered lot of mental tension and financial loss and the appellant is entitled to compensation.
4. It was prayed that he respondent may be directed to pay Rs.2,45,851/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. till realization and Rs.25,000/- as compensation.
First Appeal No.352 of 2009 3
5. In the written version filed on behalf of the respondent, preliminary objections were taken that the appellant has got no locus standi to file the complaint and has no right to claim any compensation. The appellant has no cause of action. The quantum of compensation, if any, paid to third party in motor accident is to be determined by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the District Forum has no jurisdiction. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.
6. On merits, it was submitted that the complaint has not been filed by competent person. There is no consumer dispute. It was denied that the respondent ever told the appellant that the entire amount of treatment will be paid. The appellant was not competent to compromise the matter, nor it was authorized by the respondent to enter into any compromise. As per the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance, the insurer cannot enter into any compromise with third party without the prior approval of the company. Other similar pleas were repeated and denying allegations of the complaint, it was prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
7. Parties led evidence in support of their respective contentions by way of affidavits and documents.
8. After going through the documents and material placed on file and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned District Forum observed that in view of the provision contained U/s 165 and 175 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Forum has no jurisdiction and the appellant has no locus standi to file the complaint, as the claims for compensation in respect of third party are to be decided by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The respondent was not a party to the settlement. It is not proved that the appellant paid Rs.2,45,851/- at the instance of the respondent insurance company. The alleged compromise was between the appellant and the injured persons and it does not bind the insurance company to pay the claim, and dismissed the complaint.
First Appeal No.352 of 2009 4
9. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 06.02.2009, the appellant has come up in appeal.
10. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, perused the record of the learned District Forum and have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.
11. Admittedly, the vehicle in question belonging to the company bearing registration no.HPTC-029 was insured with the respondent company and the said vehicle met with an accident on 29.06.2007 at Village Kot Fatuhi and the motorcyclists namely Parmvir Singh and Rajvinder Singh received injuries and they were got admitted in D.M.C. & Hospital, Ludhiana and were treated there. The appellant spent the amount on the treatment of the said injured persons and he has placed on record the hospital record Mark C-13 to Mark-C-140. As per the appellant, he entered into a compromise with the injured and paid the money spent on the treatment with the consent of the respondent insurance company. The appellant has failed to bring on record any written consent of the respondent insurance company to settle the amount with the injured. Moreover, the motorcyclists, who were injured, were third party and for third party compensation, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) is competent and the injured were supposed to file a claim petition before the MACT for claiming compensation from the appellant company as well as by impleading the respondent insurance company as a party and in that eventuality, the MACT could decide the claim petition, if it was satisfied from the evidence, but in this case it is otherwise and here the appellant company, whose vehicle was insured and met with an accident, is claiming compensation from the respondent insurance company, which was allegedly spent on the treatment of the injured. This type of litigation is foreign to the consumer courts and the complaint itself was not competent and the District Forum has rightly passed the impugned order under appeal which is a detailed and speaking one and does not warrant any interference. First Appeal No.352 of 2009 5
12. Sequel to the above discussion, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed and the impugned order under appeal dated 06.02.2009 is affirmed and upheld. No order as to costs.
13. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 10.04.2013 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
15. The appeal could not be decided within the stipulated timeframe due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(Inderjit Kaushik) Presiding Judicial Member (Vinod Kumar Gupta) Member April 18, 2013.
(Gurmeet S)