The complainant Ritu Raj has filed this complaint petition against Branch Manager, Magma HDI. General Insurance Company Ltd. Muzaffarpur life insurance company Ltd. and one another (o.ps) for realization of Rs. 4,35,173/- as sum assured, with 9 % p.a. interest from the date of theft till realization, Rs. 50,000/- as economical, mental and physical harassment and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation cost.
The brief facts of the case are, that the complainant had purchased a tractor of Mahindra and Mahindra company bearing Registration No. BR-31G-9615 for personal use and got insurance from the o.p company bearing policy No.- P0016400002/4107/225269. The tractor was insured for the period of 30-03-2016 to 29-03-2017. The further case is that after keeping the tractor in his Godown, complainant went at Nashik for construction of his house and expended many months there. The further case is that he could not get fitness of the aforesaid tractor due to above reason. Further case is that on 09-03-2017 the aforesaid tractor was stolen away by unknown theft from his godown, situated at Maricha Chowk after breaking the lock of this same. The further case is that in the next morning, without complainant visited his godown and found that the tractor was missed. He searched the tractor but could not succeeded so he lodged an FIR in Maniyari P.S. bearning Maniyari Case No. 40/17. After investigation police submitted final form on 29-06-2017 showing the case true but not clue and the same was accepted by the court of S.D.G.M (West) Muzaffarpur on 22-07-2017. The further case is that the complainant filed his claim before o.p company with all his relevant documents but o.p company repudiated the same on the ground that there was no fitness of the tractor. So, on 09-11-2017 the complainant sent a legal notice to the o.p through his advocate but o.p company has rejected his claim.
The complainant has filed the following documents with the complaint petition -photocopy of Insurance certificate annexure-1-, photocopy of Screen Report annexure-2-, photocopy of order dated 22-07-2017 Acceptance of final form annexure-3-, photocopy of FIR of Maniyari P.S. Case No. 40/2017 annexure-4-, photocopy of Final Form annexure-5-, photocopy of Information petition to police on 09-03-2017 annexure-6, Photocopy of information petition to D.T.O Vaishali dated 20-03-2017 annexure-7, photocopy of information petition to D.T.O Vaishali annexure-8, photocopy of same paper as annexure-7- annexure-9, photocopy of repudiation letter annexure-10, photocopy of legal notice as annexure-11.
On issuance of notices o.ps appeared and filed w.s. On behalf of the o.p no.2 w.s. has been filed on 09-10-2018 with prayer to dismiss the complaint case.
It has been mentioned in the w.s. that the complaint case is not maintainable either in law or on facts. It has been further mentioned that there is no deficiency in service on part of the o.p that is Magma S.D.I GIC Ltd. It has been further mentioned that the insured must take reasonable step to safeguard the vehicle from loss and damage. It has been further mentioned that the complainant claim ignore the terms of the contract of insurance. It has been further mentioned that as per verification of vehicle –BR-31G-9615 issued by D.T.O. Registration of aforesaid vehicle was expired 01-04-2016 and the said registration certificate has not been renewed after 01-04-2016 which effectively implies that vehicle was not holding/ carrying valid and effective certificate of registration after 01-04-2016 whereas the vehicle was stolen away on 09-03-2017. So, it clearly shows that on date of loss i.e. on 09-03-2017 the vehicle was not validly and effectively registered. The o.p has annexed the photocopy of registration verification certificate as annexure-I. It has been further mentioned that the aforesaid clearly shows violation of section 39 of motor vehicle Act. It has been further mentioned that on the date of occurrence vehicle was not holding a valid and effective certificate of fitness. He has further annexed the photocopy of screen report of the vehicle no. BR 31G-9615 as annexure-II.
The o.p company has repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that on the material time of loss vehicle was not carrying a valid certificate of fitness.
The learned lawyer for the o.p. submits that at the time of occurrence the tractor in question was not validly registered nor as possess fitness certificate, so it is clearly violation of section 39 of M.V.Act and as such he is not entitled to get any compensation from the o.p company as the same is in violation of terms of the policy.
He also submits that due to non possession of fitness certificate, the complainant also violates section 56 of the M.V. Act. He has relied on many ruling of National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission passed in United India Insurance Company Ltd. V/s Triloc Koshik revision petition No.2976/2006 order dated 09-11-2010 and appeal no. 504/1997 decided on 31-07-2006 in the case of airplot Swath airlines V/s United India Insurance Company Ltd. and order passed on 16-09-2016 in revision petition no. 622/2013 Baghel Singh Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd.
Learned lawyer for the complainant submits that he has filed annexure of photocopy of screen report of transport department which goes to show that he had deposited tax for registration and the same was valid up to 29-03-2019. He further submits that fitness of the tractor was only valid up to 01-04-2016. He further submits that the tractor in question was not plying on the road, so section 39 and 56 of the M.V. Act don’t’ attract. He further submits that vehicle in question was lying in his godown from where it was stolen away, so the observations of the Hon’ble National Commission don’t apply in this case and the facts of this case are different from the facts of the case enumerated in the ruling.
O.P Company has repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that the tractor in question had not possessed the valid fitness certificate on the date of occurrence
It is an admitted fact that the tractor bearing No. BR31G5615 was insured with the o.p company.
On perusal of annexure-2, filed on behalf of complainant, photocopy of screen report it transpires that tax of the aforesaid tractor was paid till 29-03-2029. Only fitness was valid since 01-04-2016. Same documents have also been filed on behalf of o.p as annexure-II. The complainant has also filed photocopy of certificate of insurance annexure-1 which shows that the policy was issued on 20-02-2016 and the same was valid since 30-03-2016 till midnight of 29-03-2017. The o.p has raised the objection that the registration of the vehicle was only valid up to 01-04-2016 and he has filed the report from the office of D.T.O. The O.P has raised this question so burden lies on him and he was under liability to prove the fact by adducing evidence but o.p has not adduced any evidence in this respect. The question also arises as to when the vehicle in question was not validly registered, how can he issued the certificate of the insurance. The complainant has deposited onetime tax of registration and the same was valid till 29-03-2029, so the question raised on behalf of o.p is not proved regarding registration.
As regards fitness, the vehicle in question was stolen away from the Godown of the complainant. So, it is clear that the vehicle in question was not being plyed on road and as such the provision of MV Act will not apply in our opinion. The complainant has filed annexure 3, 4,5,6,7,8 and 9 regarding the information about theft of his tractor. Police investigated the case and found the case true but not clue ( annexure-8). The final form has been accepted by the learned S.D.G.M (West) vide order dated 22-07-2017. The vehicle in question insured within the period and as such the o.p company was under the liability to pay the insured amount to the complainant but they didn’t do so and repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground of fitness.
On the basis on above discussion we are of the considered opinion that there is no deficiency in service on part of the o.ps and O.ps Company are liable to pay insured amount.
Accordingly, the claim petition is allowed and the o.ps company are directed to pay Rs. 4,35,173/-, sum assured to the complainant with 7 % interest p.a from the date of the filing of complaint, Rs. 20,000/- for mental and physical harassment & Rs. 10,000/- as litigation cost to the complainant within 2 months from the date of order, on failure he shall be liable to pay aforesaid amount with 9 % interest p.a. till realization. Let a copy of this order be furnished to both the parties as per rule.
