Haryana

Karnal

CC/123/2015

M/s Shri Ram Charit manas Senior Secondary School - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company - Opp.Party(s)

S.D. Sharma

02 Feb 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.  

                                                          Complaint No.123 of 2015

                                                               Date of instt.: 23.6.2015

                                                          Date of decision: 2.02.2016

 

M/s Shri Ram Charit Manas Senior Secondary School, Basant Vihar, near ITI Chowk, Kailash Karnal, through its Principal Shri Sandeep Kumar Gauptam.

.                                                                   ……..Complainant.

                                      Vs.

ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited having its Office at Sector 12, Urban Estate, Karnal through its Divisional Manager.

                                                                           ……… Opposite Party.

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer

                     Protection Act.

 

Before          Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.                

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:-        Sh.S.D.Sharma Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.A.K.Vohra Advocate for the Opposite Party.

 

ORDER:                  

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, on the averments that  his vehicle bearing registration No. HR-45A-7935 was insured with the Opposite party for the period of 30.4.2014  to 29.4.2015, vide policy No. 3004/89850/95/00/1300. On 22.11.2014 at about 6.50 PM, the said vehicle caught fire all of a sudden while the same was parked at the premises of the school. Information regarding the fire was given to the Fire Station, Nagar Nigam, Karnal, immediately from Mobile No. 94670-48627. Entry regarding the intimation was made in the roznamcha of the Fire Station. However, the fire brigade could not reach the spot to control the fire  upto 7.20PM. In the meantime, the fire was controlled by the complainant and Neighbourers and intimation regarding that was also given to the Fire Station at 7.20PM. Information regarding the  incident of fire was given to the Opposite Party. Surveyor was appointed who visited the spot and assessed the loss on 6.12.2014. All the required documents  were submitted to the Opposite party for payment of the claim. On 27.2.2015, the claim was rejected on the ground that fitness certificate was not valid on the date of accident. Rejection of the claim of the complainant  by the Opposite party  amounted to  deficiency in services and unfair trade practice which caused him mental  pain, agony and harassment apart from financial loss.

2.                 Notice of the complaint was given to the Opposite party who appeared and filed written statement controverting the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complaint is not maintainable in its present form; that the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands; that the complainant has no locus standi and  cause of action; and that the vehicle was being used for commercial purposes for transporting school children, therefore, the claiment doesnot fall within the definition of consumer.

                   On merits, it has been denied that the Opposite Party was informed about the incident of fire immediately. It has been submitted that no First Information Report or Daily Diary report was lodged with the police,  regarding catching fire by the vehicle , while the same was lying parked  unattended in the premises the school. The complainant was duly informed that there was no fitness certificate of the vehicle on the date of loss and for that reason, the claim was rightly rejected vide letter dated 27.2.2015. Thus, there was neither deficiency in services nor any unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party. The other averments made in the complaint have been denied.

3.                 In evidence of the complainant, affidavit of Sh.Sandeep Gautam, Principal Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8 have been tendered.

4.                 On the other hand, in evidence of the Opposite Party, affidavit of Ms.Meenu Sharma Ex.O1 and copy of the insurance policy Ex.O2 has been tendered.

5.                 We have appraised the evidence on record,  the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties.

6.                 The vehicle of the complainant bearing registration No. HR-45A/3934 was insured with the Opposite Party.   On 22.4.2014, while the same was lying parked in the premises of the school, the same caught fire and was damaged.  No Daily Diary Report or First Information Report regarding the incident was got registered. However, as per the case of the complainant,  the intimation  regarding the fire was given to the Fire Station, Nagar Nigam, Karnal, but the fire brigade did not reach the spot upto 7.20PM. In the meantime, fire was controlled and again intimation was sent to the Fire Station. The copy of the Roznamcha of the Fire Station  Ex.C4  lends support to such version of the complainant. The Opposite Party  has not disputed the fact that surveyor was appointed who inspected the damaged vehicle and assessed the loss.  However, the claim of the complainant was repudiated on the sole ground that fitness certificate of the vehicle was not valid on the date of loss.

7.                 The learned counsel for the Opposite Party laid emphasis on the contention that there was no fitness certificate of the vehicle of the complainant on the date when the same was damaged  in fire, whereas  the fitness certificate is necessary for use of the vehicle. Therefore, the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated by the Opposite Party. In support of his contention, he placed reliance upon  Thara Versus Syamala 2009 A.C.J.2440.

8.                 The law laid down in Thara’s case(Supra) by the Hon’ble Kerala High court cannot be doubted but the same does not cut any ice in favour of the Opposite Party under the facts and circumstances of the present case.  In the cited case, goods vehicle was involved in the accident and admittedly the same did not have valid fitness certificate or permit at the time of accident. Under those circumstances after considering the provisions of Section  149(2)(a)(i)(c) of the  Motor Vehicles Act, it was held that goods vehicle though covered by the policy of insurance will cease  to be  covered by the policy  when permit expires. In other words, a goods carriage can be used on the road for carrying goods only after obtaining permit and the use of the vehicle without fitness certificate or permit will entitle the insurer to dishonour the liability under the policy.

9.                 In the instant case, the copy of the fitness certificate Ex.C8  shows that the said certificate was issued on 25.4.2011. It was not mentioned as to on which date the validity of the same would expire. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was no fitness certificate on 22.11.2014, the date of incident of fire. Moreover, the complainant has specifically pleaded that the vehicle  caught fire while the same was lying parked in the premises of the school. The affidavit Ex.CW1/A of the Principal, is  also to the same effect. There is no evidence of the Opposite Party,  which may indicate that vehicle was being plied  on the road at the time when the same caught fire. Therefore, no fitness certificate was required for the stationery vehicle, when the same caught fire. Even otherwise,  the insurance company has no right to repudiate the insurance claim on the ground that using the vehicle without fitness certificate, the complainant has violated the statutory provisions.  In this regard, sustenance may be sought from the decision of Hon’ble Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh in  New India Assurance company Ltd. and another Vs.Yogesh Gupta 2010(3) CLT 539 wherein the claim was repudiated on the ground that the vehicle was not having  fitness certificate at the time of accident. It was held that the appellant has no right to repudiate the claim on such ground because there was no breach of term of the policy.

10.               The complainant did not get his vehicle repaired. However, the estimate of repair was got prepared from Sameer Motors, the copy of which is Ex.C5, according to which estimated cost of parts and labour was Rs.3,12,224/-.The vehicle was insured with the Oppoiste Party for an insured value of Rs.two lac. The report of engineer Sh.J.K.Sharma, who assessed the loss is lying on the file, though the same has not been tendered in evidence by either of the party. Howvver, the fact remains that this fact is not disputed by the parties that surveyor was appointed by the Oppoiste Paty, who had assessed the loss . Summary procedure is to be followed by this Forum. Thereofre, even if  the report of surveyor has not been tendered in evidence by either of the parties, the same can be taken into consideration. As per the report of the surveyor, the net loss was assessed as Rs.1,36,595/-, after making necessary deductions.

12.               As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the Opposite Party to make the payment of Rs.1,36,595/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ nine per cent per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e.23.6.2015 till its actual realization. The complainant shall also be entitled for a sum ofRs.5500/- for the mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for the litigation expenses. The Oppoiste Party shall make the compliance of this order within a period of lthirty days from thedate of receipt of the copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced
dated:02.02.2016

                                                                    (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

            (Anil Sharma ) 

               Member.

 

 

 

Present:-        Sh.S.D.Sharma Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.A.K.Vohra Advocate for the Opposite Party.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide our separate order of the even date, the present complaint has been accepted. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced
dated:02.02.2016

                                                                    (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

            (Anil Sharma ) 

               Member.