Parmjit Kaur complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 requiring the opposite parties to pay Rs.2,00,000/- on account of loss caused to the Tata Indica Car No. PB-04K/4920 insured with the opposite parties and to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment besides Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses.<br /> 2. The complainant averred in her complaint that she is owner of Tata Indica DLS-52 Car Model-2006, Engine No. 41110 Chasis No. 48249 and registration No. PB-04K/4920. This car of the complainant was insured with the opposite parties under Policy No. 3001/1411212/00/000 dated 28th March-2006 to mid night on 27th March, 2007. On 12/5/2006 unfortunately the car of the complainant was met with an accident, which was driven by husband of the complainant and there was no other person in it regarding which an FIR No. 139 dated 14/5/2006 under Section 279/337/338/427 IPC was registered in police station Barnala District Barnala and the car was not used as commercial purposes and same was badly damaged due to this accident. The complainant spent an amount of Rs.65,389/- on its repair and about one month the above said car of the complainant remained road worthy. The complainant applied for claim of the car which was badly damaged vide claim No. 126345 but complainant has received a letter with the remarks that we are cancelling the cover note/policy w.e.f. 14th July, 2006 because the vehicle used as commercial vehicle but the vehicle of the complainant never used for commercial purposes at any time and the same was used for private/domestic purposes. So the opposite parties have illegally and intentionally rejected the claim of the complainant. A registered notice was also served upon the opposite parties, but to no effect. After that the complainant approached the opposite parties many a times to pay the requisite claim of the car in question but opposite parties have been putting off the complainant on one pretext or the other and ultimately refused to give any claim to the complainant, which is clear deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. As such the complainant has suffered a lot of mental pain, agony and harassment so he is entitled to recover Rs.2,50,000/- as compensation alongwith costs of Rs.5500/- from the opposite parties. <br /> 3. The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 8-9-2006 complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties. <br /> 4. On receipt of notice the opposite party No. 1 and 2 appeared through Sh. Y.P.Bansal Advocate and Sh. Sukhwinder Singh Proprietor of opposite party No. 3 appeared in person. Counsel for opposite party No. 1 and 2 filed written statement taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable before this Forum as the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands. The complainant has registered the present vehicle as a private car, whereas he is using the same as taxi, which is in contravention with the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The answering opposite parties got the matter investigated through Sh. A.P.Singh and after investigation it was found that the complainant was plying the vehicle in question for commercial purpose. It is violation of terms and conditions of the policy, so the present complaint is not maintainable. Even the answering opposite parties got the loss of the vehicle assessed from the Surveyor namely Shri Dinesh K. Goyal who has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.55,585/-. At the time of processing of claim, it transpired that there is a violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy, so the claim was repudiated and present complaint is not maintainable. The present complaint is not maintainable for want of joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties. In this case the vehicle is hypotheticated with the ICICI Bank, therefore, the ICICI Bank is a necessary party and hence the present complaint is not maintainable. The complainant has not furnished the requisite formalities. Even in the complaint no repair bill has been enclosed. In the absence of repair bill and re-inspection no claim is payable so the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The complainant has also violated the law of the land. Plying any vehicle for commercial purpose like taxi etc. the vehicle has to be registered as taxi and apart from that necessary permit is required under the Mot Vehicles Act. Since the complainant has not obtained the requisite permission from the date State as per Motor Vehicles Act, therefore, he has violated the law of the land as well. So the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. On merits the opposite party No. 1 and 2 admitted that the answering opposite parties insured the vehicle of the complainant. It is submitted that the risk was covered for private vehicle whereas the same is being used by the complainant for commercial purpose. It is further submitted that the premium has been charged for the private vehicle whereas the commercial vehicles are more prone to accident risk and therefore, the premium is different for commercial vehicle. The policy of the complainant was cancelled by the answering opposite parties on 14/7/2006. It is also wrong that the loss suffered by the complainant is to the tune of Rs.65,389/- and in fact the independent surveyor and loss assessor assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.55,585/-. After the rejection of the complainant the complainant has never approached to the answering opposite parties. So there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering opposite parties. So the complaint be dismissed with costs.<br /> 5. The opposite party No. 3 filed written reply and admitted that the Tata Indica Car of the complainant was insured by the answering opposite party and cover note is also correct. After the accident the complainant and her husband namely Gurcharan Singh informed the answering opposite party and he gave the contact number of the company for the purpose of claim and also gave intimation to the concerned authorities of opposite party No. 1 and 2. The opposite party No. 1 and 2 sent the letter for cancelling the cover note/policy to the answering opposite party and the answering opposite party send the same to the complainant. The answering opposite party is not guilty of adopting unfair trade practice. So the complaint be dismissed against the answering opposite party. <br /> 5. All the parties wanted to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings and proper opportunity was given to them. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, photocopy of private car package policy Ex.C-2, photocopy of premium computation table Ex.C-3, registration of the car Ex.C-4, copy of letter dated 13/7/2006 repudiating the claim Ex.C-5, photocopy of cancellation of insurance letter Ex.C-6, notice Ex.C-7, acknowledgment Ex.C-8, postal receipts Ex.C-9 and Ex.C-10, copy of FIR Ex.C-11, bills Ex.C-12 to Ex.C-14, affidavit of Gurcharan Singh Ex.C-15, signatures on letter pad Ex.CX on letter dated 11/7/2006, salary certificate of complainant Ex.C-16 and closed her evidence.<br /> 6. The opposite party No. 1 and 2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Sat Parkash Area Head Ex.R-1, affidavit of Dinesh kumar Goel Ex.R-2, copy of letter dated 11/7/2006 Ex.R-3, copy of policy Ex.R-4, copy of registration Ex.R-5, copy of survey report of Dinesh Kumar Goel Ex.R-6, copy of letter dated 14/7/2006 Ex.R-7, affidavit of A.P.Singh Ex.R-8, copy of policy Ex.R-9, copy of investigation report Ex.R-10 and closed their evidence. Opposite party No. 3 tendered in evidence affidavit of Sukhwinder Singh Proprietor Ex.R-11 and closed his evidence. <br /> 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have very carefully gone through the affidavits and documents on the file. Our observations and findings are as under.<br /> 8. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that as per report Ex.R-4 of the surveyor the complainant is entitled to the loss of Rs.55,585/- though complainant has spent more than Rs.65,000/-. Unlawfully and illegally opposite parties have repudiated the contract of insurance arbitrarily on the alleged ground of commercial use of the car. The car is being used by the complainant for her own use and for use of her family affairs. <br /> 9. Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 1 and 2 have submitted that the car in question was being used for commercial purpose as per the investigation conducted by the opposite parties through Sh. Dinesh Kumar Goel and A.P.Singh . Affidavit of A.P.Singh is Ex.R-8 and affidavit of Sat Parkash is Ex.R-1. As per the list Ex.R-3 issued by Gurdip Singh President of Baba Faridk Taxi Driver Union Faridkot the Indica Car PB-04K/4920 was being used as taxi. <br /> 10. From the perusal of the file it is made out that there is no dispute with regard to accident and assessment of loss to the car due to the accident. However the private car package policy schedule Ex.C-2 issued by the opposite party No. 1 and 2 shows that the car in question has been insured towards its declared value of Rs.3,39,153/-. Final premium of Rs.12,725/- has been paid by the owner of the car on 28th March, 2006. The policy is valid up till 27th March, 2007. As per registration certificate Ex.C-4 Paramjit Kaur complainant is owner of car No. PB-4-K/4920. It was having temporary registration number PB-10-BF/6533. The car met with the accident in the revenue estate of village Ugoke on Barnala-Bajakhana Road. FIR Ex.C-11 was registered against Gurcharan Singh husband of the complainant on 14/5/2006 at Serial No. 139 in the police station Barnala under Section 279/337/338/427 IPC. The car struck against the scooter PB-13-G/9005 driven by Manjit Singh. <br /> 11. The bill Ex.C-12 dated 5/6/2006 issued by Mehta Motors Bibi Wala Road, Bathinda shows that car in question was repaired for a sum of Rs.48161/-. There is another bill Ex.C-13 dated 5/6/2006 worth Rs.5106/- and another bill Ex.C-14 dated 5/6/2006 in respect of labour for a sum of Rs.12122/-. <br /> 12. The report Ex.R-10 dated 13/7/2006 of A.P.Singh GIC Claim Investigator shows that car in question was being used as taxi. <br /> 13. The affidavit of complainant Paramjit Kaur is Ex.C-1 declares that car was not used for commercial purpose which was badly damaged due to the accident. From perusal of the FIR Ex.C-11 it is not made out if the car at the time of accident was carrying any passengers so on the face of it the car in question cannot be said to have been used as a taxi. <br /> 14. The list Ex.R-3 issued by Gurdip Singh makes out that they are leading taxi operated union in District Faridkot for the last 30 years and they are having vehicles which are new and excellent condition. The vehicles mentioned in Ex.R-3 are attached in the taxi stand. There are 11 cars including car in question in the list. They charge Rs.800/- or Rs.700/- per day as per the condition and size of the car. There is no registered extract from the taxi union. It is not on the file from where these numbers have been added by Gurdip Singh. Gurdip Singh to fleece the customers may have given numbers of the new cars. The opposite parties have made alluring oral inquiries to hire a car. There is no direct evidence if the taxi union was having only above noted cars. That taxi union though is working since 30 years still have got it registered only in the year 2005 as per act No. XXI of 1860 at the time of registration or thereafter the taxi union might have given number of the cars attached to the union for the use of the car as taxi to the District Transport Officer, Faridkot. There is no record of the taxies from the District Transport Officer, office Faridkot. If the car is not registered as a taxi in its registration certificate than the President of the taxi driver union had no right to attach a private car with the taxi driver union for its use as a taxi. Even otherwise Gurdip Singh on whose testimony opposite parties relied upon in his cross examination has testified that he does not know Gurcharan Singh son of Kartar Singh resident of street No. 13, Bhan Singh Colony, Faridkot. In his examination in chief though he has identified his signatures on letter Ex.R-3 dated 11/7/2006 but has testified that a person from Chandigarh came and told him that they need signed letter pad fro making film. They are in need of vehicles. Gurdip Singh does not know how to write and read English. He does not know as to what has been written in the letter dated 11/7/2006 as he does not know English. The person who made writing himself on the letter pad was not known to the Gurdip Singh. Though it was written in his presence. <br /> 15. From the perusal of the letter Ex.R-3 it is made out that Gurdip Singh has appended his signatures in Gurumukhi Script that text of the letter is in English. The opposite parties were required to produce the scribe of the letter Ex.R-3 dated 11/7/2006. So the opposite parties are held to have not been able to prove that the car in question was being used as a taxi by employing Gurcharan Singh is a driver by the complainant. <br /> 16. In such like circumstances if Paramjit Kaur is drawing salary as a nurse for Rs.12,000/-or Rs.13,000/- per month does not lead to conclude that Paramjit Kaur was using his car as a taxi so cross examination by the opposite parties of Gurcharan Singh husband of the complainant is of no use to the opposite parties. The Gurcharan Singh is also having agriculture land of 9 acres in village Buggipura. <br /> 17. Learned counsel for the opposite parties could not get extracted even a single word from Gurcharan Singh if he was using the car in question as a taxi. He does not know Baba Farid Taxi Driver Union Faridkot and he maintains the car for his personal use. <br /> 18. From the above noted facts and circumstances it is amply proved that car in question was not being used as a taxi. The opposite party No. 1 and 2 have illegally repudiated the claim of the complainant. So the complaint filed by the complainant is accepted with costs of Rs.500/-. Accordingly the opposite party No. 1 and 2 are directed to pay Rs.55,585/- as claim and Rs.500/- as costs total Rs.56,085/- within the period of one month from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the opposite parties are directed to pay the interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the amount of Rs.56,085/- from the date of the decision of the complaint till the realization of the amount. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.<br /> Announced in open Forum:<br /> Dated: 12/6/2007<br /> <br />