State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs B. Patel on 18 October, 2008
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MAHARASHTRA STATE, MUMBAI FIRST APPEAL NO. 2700 OF 2006 Date of filing : 20/12/2006 @ MISC. APPL. NOS. 3159 & 3160 OF 2006 Date of order : 18/10/2008 IN CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 338 OF 2004 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : THANE United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch Office at Ulhasnagar, Golden Chambers, 2nd floor, Opp. Derby Hotel, Sector-17, Ulhasnagar 421 003. Appellant/org. O.P. V/s. B. Patel R/o. New Patel Transport Service Dev-Dayal Park CHS Ltd. Building NO.B-2, Samata Nagar, Opp. J.K. Gram, Pokhran Road No.1, Dist. Thane. Respondent/org. complainant Corum : Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member
Smt. S.P. Lale, Honble Member Present:
Mr.S.A.P. Thomas, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr.A.B. More, Advocate for the respondent.
- : ORAL ORDER :-
Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member The Insurance Company has filed this appeal against the order passed by the District Consumer Forum in complaint No.338/2004 whereby the Insurance Company has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,28,859/- to the complainant towards loss of damage vehicle and Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and Rs.2,000/- by way of cost.
There is inordinate delay of 68 days in filing appeal. Therefore, application for condonation of delay is filed. The inordinate delay is not at all explained satisfactorily. We are therefore not inclined to condone the delay. Application for condonation of delay stands rejected.
By way of abundant precaution, we examined correctness of the impugned order.
The case of the parties in the Forum below may be stated as under :-
Respondent Shri B. Patel had filed consumer complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of United India Insurance Company Ltd. According to the respondent, he was owner of M/Tanker No.MH-04-AL-6332. The said vehicle was insured with O.P. for a period 19/07/2001 to 18/07/2002. The said vehicle met with an accident on 27/06/2002 near Khamma Village, Hyderabad when it dashed against a wall and a tree while passing on the road. In the said accident, the vehicle was badly damaged and driver of the vehicle sustained injuries. The said vehicle was loaded with Distilled Rice Bran Fatty Acid and was coming towards Mumbai. A complaint was lodged with the Police Station and the complainant informed the O.P. about the said accident. The O.P./Insurance Company appointed a Surveyor to assess the loss of vehicle. The complainant submitted the necessary documents to the O.P. and requested to settle the claim. But, the O.P. repudiated his claim on the ground that the Tanker was carrying hazardous chemicals for which is its driver had not effective and valid driving licence as per mandatory Rule 132 (5) of the Central Motors Vehicle Rules and as per Section 14 (2)(a) of Motor Vehicles Act. According to the complainant the driver had taken training from Thane Manufacturers. According to him the Distilled Rice Bran Fatty Acid is not hazardous goods or chemical and he submitted report of Chemical Industries dated 22/09/2004 to that effect. The complainant visited many times to the O.P.s office regarding claim, but the claim was not settled and therefore alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company, the complainant filed consumer complaint in the Forum below. He claimed amount of Rs.3,28,859/- with interest from 27/03/2002. He also claimed compensation of Rs.25,000/- and Rs.5,000/- towards cost.
On notices being issued the Insurance Company put in appearance and filed written statement. They denied the allegations made by the complainant. According to the Insurance Company the Distilled Rice Bran Fatty Acid was hazardous chemical and for carrying the same, the driver of the tanker has not having valid and effective licence under the Rule 132 (5) of Central Motor Vehicle Rules and as per Section 14(2)(a) of Motor Vehicle Act. The Insurance Company pleaded that the complainant was carrying on commercial activities. The Insurance Company further pleaded that the charge-sheet has been filed against the driver of the vehicle since he had driven the vehicle rashly and negligently. The O.P. pleaded that the claim was rightly rejected by them and the Surveyor had assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.56,395/- towards repair charges. The parties filed affidavits and documents. The complainant produced the report of the Indian Rubber Manufacturers Research Association, which affiliated to the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Govt. of India and the said Association has given report that the Distilled Rice Brand Futty Acid was 213C. Relying on the report submitted by the complainant and on finding that the O.P. had not filed any laboratory report, the Forum below was of the view that the Distilled Rice Brand Futty Acid being carried in the tanker in question was not at all hazardous chemical as claimed by the O.P. Therefore, the Insurance Company was liable to pay the insurance dues and it therefore allowed the complaint and passed the necessary directions against the O.P. As such the Insurance Company filed this appeal.
We heard Mr.S.A.P. Thomas, Advocate for the appellant/Insurance Company and Mr.A.B. More, Advocate for the respondent/org. complainant.
We are finding that the Insurance Company has not established by adducing positive evidence as to whether the Acid in question was hazardous chemical, which required special licence to be carried by the driver of such a tanker carrying such hazardous chemical. Two reports are placed on record. One is issued by the Sundri Agro Chemical Industries dated 22/09/2004. Another report of Indian Rubber Manufacturers Research Association, Thane has also given report dated 09/08/2005. It says the sample of Distilled Rice Brand Futty Acid had 213C. It means that under the normal temperature the said acid could not be said to be hazardous chemical. Now, when it is the case of the appellant that the acid in question was hazardous one, it should have produced on record some report of laboratory approved by the Government of India. No such report has been adduced by the Insurance Company. When the Insurance Company is repudiating the claim, it has to establish how this acid in question was hazardous chemical and how tanker driver carrying such acid was required to have special licence issued under the Motor Vehicles Act or Rules framed thereunder. No such attempts have been made by the Insurance Company to establish its case to the satisfaction of the District Consumer Forum or to our satisfaction. Therefore, the order passed by the Forum below is appearing to be just and proper. The repudiation is not at all supported by any expert opinion or report of approved laboratory. Moreover, the Survey Report is not placed on record as has been observed by the Forum below in its judgement. In the circumstances, the Forum below has rightly acted upon the material placed before it by the complainant and passed the award giving sound reasoning. We are therefore finding no substance in the appeal. As such, on merits also the appeal deserves to be dismissed. Hence, the following order:-
-:
ORDER :-
1. Application for condonation of delay stands rejected.
2. Appeal stands dismissed summarily with no order as to costs.
3. Misc. Appl.
No.3160/2006, which is for stay stands disposed of.
4. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
(S.P. Lale) (P.N. Kashalkar) Member Presiding Judicial Member dd.