E-Paper
Insurance firm directed to reimburse ₹7.7 lakh claim for stolen trailer
The commission, in its order, rejected the insurance firm’s stance that the insurance applied only to the carrier vehicle and not the trailer
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has directed Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Co Limited to reimburse a claim of ₹7.7 lakh against a stolen trailer to the complainant, a logistics company, along with compensation of ₹5,000.
M/s Multiform Logistics Private Limited, Fleet Owners and Transport Contractors, Mundian Kalan, Ludhiana, submitted a complaint against the New Delhi-based Iffco-Tokio General Insurance through its managing director (referred to as OP1) and through its branch manager, Ludhiana (OP2).
The complaint
The complainant got its trailer insured from the said insurance company for ₹8,10,000 valid from January 29, 2017 to January 28, 2018 and paid a premium of ₹40,615. No detailed terms and conditions of the policy were allegedly supplied to the complainant.
On July 29, 2017, the trailer in question was taken from Sahni village to Doraha after loading the goods. As the trailer horse developed some defect at Sahni village, Gurdeep Singh, the driver Gurdeep Singh parked the trailer at Nirmal Weighing Bridge as there was no parking space at the workshop. The driver took the horse to Transport Nagar to get it repaired.
On July 31, 2017, at about 11 am, when the driver went to Nirmal Weighing Bridge after getting the horse-vehicle repaired, he found that the trailer was not there and some unknown persons had stolen the same.
An FIR was registered on the statement of Krishan Pal Singh, director of the complainant company, on November 22, 2017 under Section 379 (theft) of the Indian Penal Code.
It is further alleged that the complainant lodged a claim of theft of the trailer with the insurance company on July 31, 2017 amounting to ₹7,70,000 and also supplied all the required documents.
The OPs registered the claim and appointed M/s Prism Insurance Consultant, New Delhi, as investigator to investigate the claim. Eventually, the OPs vide letter dated August 31, 2018 allegedly repudiated the claim on false and flimsy grounds.
Terming it as deficiency of service, the logistic company sought directions to the insurance company to reimburse the claim and interest @12% per annum along with compensation of ₹2 lakh for causing mental tension, pain and agony.
Refuting the allegations, the counsel for the insurance company averred that the policy in question was only for the towing vehicle i.e. self propelled vehicle (horse unit) and the policy was not extended to the trailer attached to such vehicle and nor any premium was paid for insuring the trailer as is evident from the policy schedule itself.
The insurance company was not bound to pay the claim of theft of the trailer which was not at all insured under the policy in question, added the counsel.
The order
The commission, in its order, observed that the carrier would not be a vehicle unless the trailer is attached with it.
“The trailer would be deemed to be covered under the policy being an integral part of the vehicle even though it was not specifically or separately insured in the policy. It appears to be quite a reasonable interpretation that once the carrier-vehicle is insured which cannot be treated as a complete vehicle without a trailer, the insurance of the trailer would be automatic once the vehicle itself was insured,” the commission stated.
Pronouncing the order, it said, “Under the circumstances, in our considered view, it would be just and proper if the OPs are directed to reimburse the claim in respect of the theft of the trailer strictly as per terms and conditions of the policy along with a composite cost of ₹5,000.”
