BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 205 of 2011
Date of Institution : 7.9.2011
Date of Decision : 23.8.2016
Jeeto Devi wife of Sh.Sadhu Singh, r/o village Kashi Ka Bass, tehsil Ellenabad District Sirsa.
….Complainant.
Versus.
ICICI Lombard Insurance Company Zenith house, Keshav Rao, Khode Marg, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai having its branch office Ist Floor, shop no.92, 94,95, new Cloth Market, near NH-15, Sri Ganganagar through its Branch Manager..
...…Opposite party.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI S.B.LOHIA………………………….PRESIDENT.
SHRI RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL…. MEMBER.
Present: Sh.A.K.Gupta, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.R.K.Mehta, Advocate for the opposite party.
ORDER
The facts arisen out from the present complaint are that:- complainant is a owner of one three wheeler bearing registration no. RJ-31-PA/2097. On 28.1.2011 deceased son of the complainant was coming from Sangria to his home in the three wheeler and when he reached near Dhani Nanakpur, an Indica Car bearing No. HR12G-8659 being driven in a high speed and rash and negligent manner struck against the three wheeler, as a result of which, three wheeler damaged badly and Raju Ram son of the complainant received injuries and died later on. FIR was recorded. As alleged deceased son of the complainant was coming in the three wheeler alone and it was not plied for passengers at that time. In the said accident, three wheeler was damaged. The three wheeler was insured with Op company vide policy no. 3004/62638/42/00/000 w.e.f. 25.12.2010 to 24.12.2011. This insurance was comprehensive wherein the own damage was covered to the tune of Rs.118750/-. Op was informed. A surveyor was appointed and three wheeler was kept with Gayatri Motors Ganganagar, where surveyor conducted the survey. Op vide letter dt.25.5.2011 repudiated the claim on the ground that the permit was not allowed on the date of accident. Hence, the present complaint.
2. Opposite party in its reply pleaded that permit of the three wheeler in question was not valid at the time of loss and Op rightly repudiated the claim. Op further denied the remaining allegations of the complaint.
3. By way of evidence, complainant produced her affidavit Ex.C1, repudiation letter Ex.C2, insurance policy Ex.C3,copy of RC Ex.C4, fitness certificate Ex.C5, copy of permit ExC6 and copy of judgment passed by MACT, Sirsa Ex.C7. Whereas, the Op produced repudiation letter Ex.R1 and survey report Ex.R2..
4. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard learned counsels for both the parties.
5. The only question to determine in the present complaint is whether the repudiation by the Op is wrong or not? The Op vide its letter Ex.C2 repudiated the claim for want of validity of permit on the date of loss. From the perusal of policy certificate Ex.C3, it is clearly mentioned in the Clause of limitation as to use that the policy comes to use only under a permit within the meaning of the Motor Vehicle Act. Admittedly, three wheeler had no valid permit on the date of accident and loss and the permit Ex.C6 had been issued on 8.3.2011 i.e. after approx. two months from the date of loss i.e. 28.1.2011. Ld. counsel for complainant cited case laws titled Future General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt.Surjo Devi and others, Vol.CLXIX 2013-1, 246 and Santoshbai and others Vs. Satish Kumar and others, 2011 ACJ 2006, but the same are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
6. As a result of our discussion, we are of the view that the present complaint deserves dismissal. We order accordingly. No order as to cost. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:23.8.2016. Member. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
