Advocate Jayashree Kulkarni
for the complainant.
Advocate Dilip M. Melwani
for the Opponent.
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-**-
Per Hon’ble Shri. V. P. Utpat, President
:- JUDGMENT :-
Date – 15th July 2013
This complaint is filed by owner of the vehicle against the Insurance Company for deficiency in service u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Brief facts are as follows-
[1] It is the case of the complainant that he has purchased Truck bearing No. MH 14 AH 6544 which was insured with the opponent Insurance Company on 13/12/2008. On 22/7/2009 the Truck met with an accident and damaged totally. Complainant has reported his claim to the opponent and informed about the damage of Rs.2,88,360/-. He had submitted all the relevant papers to the opponent but his claim was rejected as he has not submitted Fitness certificate. The act of the opponent amounts to deficiency in service as there was no nexus in Fitness Certificate and the accident in which the Truck was damaged. Complainant has prayed for directing the opponent to pay Rs.2,88,360/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. He has also asked compensation of Rs.15,000/- for mental harassment and inconvenience.
[2] Opponent appeared before the Forum and resisted the claim by filing written version in which it has flatly denied that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opponent. It is not disputed by the opponent that the Truck in dispute was insured with the opponent on relevant date. But according to the opponent the claim was rightly repudiated as Fitness Certificate was not produced by the complainant. It is also contended that the Fitness Certificate has nexus with the accident hence that amounts to breach of terms and conditions of the policy and that is absolute breach. Hence complainant is not entitled for the accident claim for own damage. The opponent has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
[3] After scrutinizing the documentary evidence, affidavits, written argument and pleadings of both parties following points arise for my determination. The points, findings and reasons thereon are as follows-
Sr.No. | POINTS | FINDINGS |
1 | Whether Fitness Certificate has nexus with the accident ? | In the affirmative |
2 | Whether the complainant has committed breach of conditions of policy ? | In the affirmative |
3 | What order ? | Complaint is dismissed |
Reasons
As to the Point Nos. 1 to 3-
The undisputed facts in the present proceeding are that the complainant is the owner of the disputed Truck bearing No. MH 14 AH 6544 which was insured with the opponent for the period of 13/12/2008 to 12/12/2009. It is not in much dispute that the accident took place during the validity of insurance and it was covered by the Insurance Policy. The complainant has produced driving license, copy of F.I.R., survey report, the bills as regards expenses incurred for the repairs of the vehicle. The claim of the complainant was repudiated only on the ground that he had not produced Fitness Certificate of the vehicle. According to the opponent in order to claim compensation from the Insurance Company the said Fitness Certificate is sine-cona-non. It is not in much dispute that the complainant has not produced the said Fitness Certificate. Unless and until the vehicle is in fit condition the owner of the vehicle cannot ply the same on the road and it has direct nexus with the condition of the vehicle. The learned Advocate for the complainant argued before me that if the breach of terms and conditions of the policy are sideline violation and not the basic cause of the claim, claimant is entitled for compensation on non standard basis. In that context reliance has been placed upon the ruling of the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh in case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Vinod kumar Bansal reported in 2011(3) CPR 104. That ruling is based upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v/s. Nitin Khandelwal reported in IV (2008) CPJ 1(SC). In that ruling it has been observed that if there was no nexus between the cause of claim with breach of terms and conditions of the policy then the insured is entitled to insurance claim to the extent of 75% of the amount claimed on non-standard basis.
It is significant to note that the ruling on which reliance has been placed by the learned Advocate for the complainant is not helpful in order to adjudicate the dispute between the parties as the breach of terms and conditions is relating with the Fitness Certificate of the vehicle and which has paramount importance as well as direct nexus with the cause of accident, while considering the own damage claim of the vehicle. In my opinion as the complainant has not produced any documentary evidence to prove that the vehicle in dispute was in fit condition on the date of accident then he is not entitled for compensation from the Insurance Company as the Fitness Certificate of the vehicle is the basic requirement and has nexus with the cause of accident.
I answer the points accordingly and pass the following order-
:- ORDER :-
1. Complaint is dismissed.
2. No order as to costs.
3. Parties are directed to collect the sets which were supplied for the Hon’ble Members within one month from the date of order. Otherwise they will be destroyed.
Copy of order be supplied to both the parties free of cost.
Place- Pune
Date – 15/07/2013
