UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY vs CHARAN DASS

THIS appeal has been directed by the opposite parties against order dated 25.7.2006 passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-Ludhiana (hereinafter to be referred as District Consumer Forum), vide which complaint of respondent Charan Dass (complainant) was accepted and United India Insurance Company was directed to pay the amount as per rules and regulations and terms and conditions of the policy keeping in view report of the Surveyor Ex. R.5 along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of repudiation of claim till entire payment was made.

BRIEFLY stated the facts are that Shri Charan Dass, respondent (complainant) was owner of TATA Sumo bearing No. PB-10AU-8653. It was got insured with United India Insurance Company Limited vide policy dated 17.10.2001 with effect from 17.10.2001 to 16.10.2002. Unfortunately an accident had taken place on 10.3.2002 as the TATA sumo struck against a tree on the side of road and was totally damaged. DDR No. 11 dated 10.3.2002 was recorded with Police Station, Raikot. Intimation was also given about the accident to United India Insurance Company Limited which appointed Surveyor and the Surveyor assessed loss to the tune of Rs.1,85,000 but the Insurance Company failed to pay this amount in spite of registered notice. Alleging deficiency in service, complaint was filed.

The United India Insurance Company Limited contested the complaint. It stated that TATA Sumo No. PB 01-2993 was insured with it which was used as a taxi and premium was charged as taxi. Later on the owner got it changed to private vehicle and its registration number was changed to PB10-AU8653 which was not insured with it and further no such transfer got effected in the insurance certificate. It also denied that Baldev Singh was the driver on 10.3.2002 but on the other hand asserted that Mr. Ranjit Singh was the driver on that day when the accident took place. It next stated that M/s. R.P. Bhasin & Co. was appointed as Loss assessor of the vehicle which assessed loss of the vehicle at Rs. 1,85,000 and salvage value to the tune of Rs. 90,000 vide report dated 24.7.2002. It further stated that earlier Engineer Sunil Kumar Goyal was deputed for spot survey who gave his report dated 19.3.2002. After perusing the case minutely, the claim was rightly repudiated. It next stated that the policy was issued by branch office, Barnala and as such District Consumer Forum, Ludhiana had no territorial jurisdiction to try this complaint. It denied other allegations and stated that complaint should be dismissed.

PARTIES adduced their evidence by way of affidavits. After hearing Counsel for the parties District Consumer Forum accepted the complaint vide order dated 25.7.2006 as stated in the earlier part of the judgment.

AGGRIEVED by the said order, opposite parties have filed the present appeal. We have heard Counsel for appellants Mr. Harash Aggarwal, Mr. Vikas Sagar, Advocate for respondent (complainant) and carefully gone through the file. It is an admitted fact that Tata Sumo bearing No. PB-10AU 8653 was registered in the name of Charan Dass. It was insured with United India Insurance Company Limited vide policy dated 17.10.2001 bearing No. 346347 from 17.10.2001 to 16.10.2002. The accident had taken place on 10.3.2002 i.e. within the policy period. The case of respondent is that at that time it was being driven by Baldev Singh who was also injured in the accident and was admitted in Gurkirit Hospital, Ludhiana and was treated by Dr. Manvir Singh from 10.3.2002 to 14.3.2002. There is no dispute about it that the driver Baldev Singh had a genuine driving licence to drive the vehicle, photocopy of which Annexure C-12 has been placed on file.

THE case of the Insurance Company is that at that time it was being driven by Ranjit Singh who was not having valid driving licence. THEre is no satisfactory evidence to prove this fact that it was being driven by Mr. Ranjit Singh and not Baldev Singh at the time of accident. It hardly matters. If the Tata Sumo bearing No. PB-01-2993 being used as taxi got transferred as private vehicle by the registered owner i.e. from taxi to private vehicle and then also got changed the number to PB-10AU-8653.THE Insurance Company had not been put to loss because the registered owner had paid the higher premium than the premium which was to be paid by him if he had got insured it as private vehicle as the risk in case of plying taxi is higher.

A perusal of the photocopy of annexure C-2 shows that engine number and chassis number of TATA Sumo of 1998 model bearing registration No. PB-01-2993 had been mentioned in the insurance cover note. Therefore, it could not be said that it was another vehicle whose accident had taken place and it was not covered by the cover note Annexure C-2 because engine number and chassis number were the same. Counsel for Insurance Company stated that District Consumer Forum, Ludhiana had no territorial jurisdiction inasmuch as cover note had been issued by the branch office, Raikot and subsequently it was alleged that change of registration of number was made by Barnala office. Vide Annexure R-2 Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana through judgment dated 15.5.2004 has held that Charan Dass had made manipulation as this endorsement of registration was not made by Barnala office. May be that it had not been made but it hardly affects the merits of the case because it is admitted that United India Insurance Company Limited has got office at Ludhiana. A perusal of the affidavit of Shri V.P. Kaul, Asstt. Manager of Regional Office, Feroze Gandhi Market shows that regional office of United India Insurance Company Limited is situated at Ludhiana, so, under Section 11(2)(a) complaint is maintainable at Ludhiana where branch office of United India Insurance Company is situated.

The Surveyor Er. Sunil Kumar Goel had conducted spot survey and made his report on 19.3.2002. It had stated that the cause of accident is genuine and on the basis of said spot survey M/s. R.P. Bhasin & Co. vide his report dated 24.7.2002 had made final report Ex. R.5. It had assessed total loss of Rs.1,85,000 and further had assessed salvage value of Rs. 90,000. Therefore, the Insurance Company is liable to pay Rs.1,85,000 as per survey report Annexure R/5 subject to return of the salvage of the car to the Insurance Company. They are further directed to pay interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of repudiation of claim till payment.

WE concur with the reasoning given by the District Consumer Forum and hold that there is no force in the appeal. Consequently, it is dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000. Copies of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. Appeal dismissed.