Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/910/2022

M/S SAAR TADERS - Complainant(s)

Versus

IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, - Opp.Party(s)

VIVEK ARORA

01 Dec 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/910/2022
Date of Institution	:	3.11.2022
Date of Decision	:	1/12/2023

 

M/s SAAR Traders (Partner) Robin Sharma, Address: E-331, 2^nd floor Miran Tower, Industrial Area Phase 8 B, SAS Nagar, Mohali Punjab 160055.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited Regd. Office at IFFCO Sadan C-1, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi 110017, through its Managing Director.
2. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited Branch office at Plot No. 2B & C, Sector 28-A, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh 160002, through its Branch Manager/Head.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                                                                

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Vivek Arora, Advocate for complainant
	:	Sh. J.P. Nahar, Advocate for OPs

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as the OP/OPs). The brief facts of the case are as under:-

1. It transpires from the averments as projected in the consumer complaint that the complainant is registered owner of the transit Mixer (Concrete Mixer) bearing Registration No. PB 65 BA 8436 registered vide Annexure C-5 (hereinafter to be referred as subject vehicle), which was got insured with the OPs vide policy Annexure C-3 and the same was valid w.e.f. 15.9.2021 till 14.9.2022.  The complainant had applied for issuance of Registration Certificate on 25.10.2021 which was issued on 19.11.2021  by the authority concerned and immediately after receiving the RC the complainant applied for the permit of the subject vehicle from the authority on 23.11.2021 and the same was issued, which was valid from 23.11.2021  to 22.11.2026. On 2.11.2021 when the subject vehicle was being driven at Ludhiana to Hussianpur Macchiwara  Raho Road, Ludhiana  the same met with an accident and as a result of that  it fell on the road side. Immediately information about the accident was given to the OPs, who deputed  their empanelled surveyor Bansal & Bansal Company and third party investigator Mr. jatinder Dhiman who visited the spot and inspected the subject vehicle and clicked photographs on the spot. The estimate of the repair was prepared by the investigator  and the copy of repair bill  is annexed as  Annexure C-11. The complainant submitted all the relevant documents with the OPs for the settlement of the claim. After sometime when the claim was not settled by the OPs, the complainant approached the OPs for the clearance of claim and it was assured to the complainant that the claim is under process.  On 23.9.2022 the complainant received letter from the OPs asking the complainant to submit the valid permit of the subject vehicle within 7 days failing which the claim will be treated as closed. The aforesaid letter issued by the OPs was on flimsy ground as the permit was only to be issued by the authorities after the issuance of the registration certificate of the subject vehicle. However, the OPs vide repudiation letter C-10 closed the claim of the complainant which is clear  violation of law already settled by the Hon’ble highest court. Alleging the aforesaid act of Opposite Parties amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part and , this false complaint has been filed OPs were requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2. OPs resisted the consumer complaint and filed their written version, inter alia, taking preliminary objections of maintainability.  On merits admitted that the subject vehicle was got insured by the complainant from the answering OPs and the same was insured at the time of accident. It is alleged that in fact the complainant was not possessing any valid permit required for the usage of the transport vehicle in any public place which is violation of the  terms and conditions of the subject policy and the claim of the complainant was accordingly  closed/repudiated. The permit obtained by the complainant was valid from 23.11.2021 to 22.11.2026 whereas the subject vehicle had met with accident on 2.11.2021 i.e. prior to the issuance of valid permit.  It is further alleged that the law on this point has already been settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court and Hon’ble National Commission by holding that  absence of permit is fundamental breach of terms and conditions of policy. The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
3. In rejoinder, complainant reiterated  the claim put forth in the consumer complaint and prayer has been made that the consumer complaint be allowed as prayed for.

2. In order to prove their case, parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the file carefully, including the written arguments.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the parties that the complainant is registered owner of the subject vehicle as is also evident from Annexure C-5, which was insured with the OPs w.e.f. 15.9.2021 till 14.9.2022  as is also evident from the subject policy Annexure C-3 and further that the subject vehicle met with an accident at Ludhiana on 2.11.2021 and the claim of the complainant was closed/repudiated by the OPs due to non providing of valid permit  of the subject vehicle  by the complainant, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if  the OPs are unjustified in closing/repudiating the claim of the complainant on the ground  of non-providing valid permit  qua the subject vehicle and the complainant is entitled for relief as prayed for as is the case of the complainant or if the OPs are justified in closing/repudiating the claim of the complainant in the absence of valid permit of the subject vehicle  and the complaint is liable to be dismissed as is the  defence of the OPs.
   2. It is an admitted case of the parties that the subject vehicle met with an accident on 2.11.2021  near Ludhiana. The complainant itself has pleaded in the complaint that it had applied for the permit with the authorities concerned only after receiving  RC of the subject vehicle  on 19.11.2021 and the permit was issued to the complainant by the authorities qua the subject vehicle which was valid w.e.f.23.11.2021 to 22.11.2026. Thus one thing is clear on record that even on the date of accident i.e. on 2.11.2021 the complainant had not applied for the permit rather it applied for permit on 23.11.2021 and the permit is valid  from 23.11.2021 to 22.11.2026  making clear that the accident had taken place even much before the applying  and issuance of the  permit Annexure C-7 by the authorities concerned.
   3. Learned counsel for the OPs has relied upon the judgment  Amrit Paul Singh & anr. v. Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors II(2018) ACC 638 (SC) in which it was observed that the breach  in respect of permit cannot be treated similar to breach due to fake license  or overloading etc. The relevant para is reproduced as under:-

“23In the case at hand, it is clearly demonstrable from the materials brought on record that the vehicle at the time of theaccident did not have a permit. The appellants had taken thestand that the vehicle was not involved in the 
accident. Thataprt, they had not stated whether the vehicle had temporarypermit or any other kind of permit. The exceptions that have been   carved   out   under   Section   66   of   the   Act,

needlesstoemphasise, are to be pleaded and proved. The exceptions cannotbe taken aid of in the course of an argument to seek absolutionfrom liability. Use of a vehicle in a public place without a permitis a fundamental statutory infraction.  We are disposed to thinkso in view of the series of exceptions 
carved out in Section 66.The said situations cannot be equated with absence of licence ora fake licence or a licence for different kind of vehicle, or, for that matter, violation   of   a  condition   of   carrying   more   number   of passengers.   Therefore,   the   principles   laid   down   in  SwaranSingh (supra) and Lakhmi Chand (supra) in that regard wouldnot be applicable to the case at hand. That apar, the insurer hadtaken the plea that the vehicle in question had no permit. It doesnot require the wisdom of the “Tripitaka”, that the existence of a permit   of   any   nature   is   a   matter   of   documentary   evidence. Nothing has been brought on record by the insured to 
prove thathe had a permit of the vehicle. In such a situation, the onuscannot be cast on the insurer. Therefore, the tribunal as well asthe High Court had directed the insurer was required to pay thecompensation amount to the claimants with interest with thestipulation that the insurer shall be entitled to recover the same from   the   owner   and   the   driver.   The   said   directions   are   in consonance with the principles stated in Swaran Singh
 (supra)and other cases pertaining to pay and recover 
principle.”

 

4. The aforesaid judgment was also followed by the Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Binod Kumar Singh III(2020) CPJ 251 (NC) in which it was held that while plying on road, the  truck was not having permit to ply on the road and the absence of permit is fundamental breach of terms and condition of policy and he relevant portion of the said order is as under:-

“we are of the view that the insurance claim of the respondent/complainant cannot be allowed in the absence of any permit for the truck which got burnt in the fire while plying on the road.”

 

5. In view of the foregoing discussion, the ratio of law laid down in the aforesaid judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court  in Amrit paul Singh & anr. (supra)  and by the Hon’ble National Commission in case of  National Insurance Company Ltd(supra), is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the instant case as it is an admitted case of the parties that the complainant was not having valid permit at the time of accident rather the complainant had not even applied for the same at the time of accident, hence, it is safe to hold that  on account of fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of subject policy, the OPs are justified in closing/repudiating the claim of the complainant.

4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
5. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.
6. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced 1/12/2023 mp			Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member
			Sd/-
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana] Member