JESDEV SINGH Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner/Complainant against order dtd. 31/10/2012 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula (for short "the State Commission") in First Appeal No.725/2011, whereby the Appeal filed by the Respondents/Opposite Parties was allowed.

(2.) Case of the Complainant/Petitioner is that vehicle No.HR-37A-7847 (fuel tanker) of the Complainant was insured with the Respondents/Opposite Parties from 9/8/2007 to 8/8/2008 for Rs.4,50,000.00. On 25/6/2008, the tanker while carrying diesel from Ambala to Kullu met with an accident near Deyol barrier. Entire fuel spread and the tanker got damaged. FIR was lodged with Police Stataion Sadari Mand, Himachal Pradesh. Intimation of accident was also given to the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company deputed a Surveyor, who visited the place of incident on 26/6/2008. The tanker was carried to the service centre of Tata Motors, which gave an estimate of repairs of Rs.10,22,410.00. The Complainant also suffered loss of Rs.3,87,606.00 on account of loss of diesel, as the said amount of Rs.3,87,606.00 was deducted by Indian Oil Corporation from the bill of the Complainant. The Complainant filed two separate claims before the Opposite Parties, one for loss to the tanker and another for loss of diesel. The Opposite Parties failed to settle the claims of the Complainant. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties, the Complainant filed two separate Consumer Complaints i.e. CC/446/2009 and CC/221/2009.

(3.) The Complaints were contested by the Opposite Parties by filing the written statements admitting the fact that the Complainant filed the claim for loss caused to the tanker. The Complainant, however, did not report for loss of fuel. The Opposite Parties, therefore, did not appoint the Surveyor for assessment of loss of fuel. It was stated that Tanker No.HR-37-A-7847 was plied in Himachal Pradesh without route permit in violation of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy as well as in contravention to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Complainant filed two Complaints to put pressure on the Opposite Party. It was also stated that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party.