Before the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission [Central District] - VIII, 5th Floor Maharana Pratap ISBT Building, Kashmere Gate, Delhi
Complaint Case No.350/26.09.2016
C-1. Satender Pal Singh s/o Sh. Vijender Singh
C-2. Smt. Babita Chaudhary w/o Sh. Satender Pal Singh
Both r/o H.No.5/950, Vasundhara, Gaziabad, UP …Complainants
Versus
OP1. National Insurance Co. Ltd ,
General Claim Hub, 2-E/25, Third Floor, above HDFC Bank,
Jhandewalan New Dehli-110055
OP2. National Insurance Co. Ltd.
Second Floor, EMOA House, 23/23-B, Ansari Road,
Darya Ganj, New Delhi-110002 ...Opposite Parties
Date of filing: 26.09.2016
Coram: Date of Order: 04.12.2024
Shri Inder Jeet Singh, President
Ms Rashmi Bansal, Member -Female
FINAL ORDER
Inder Jeet Singh , President
It is scheduled today for order (item no.1)
1.1. (Introduction to case of parties) – The complainants have grievances of deficiency of services against insurer/OP from whom the complainants bought insurance policy no. 36150031146300000615, on 27.05.2014 (herein after referred as the insurance policy) in respect of their vehicle UP 14AT 9207 Make-Tata Bus (hereinafter referred as the vehicle or bus). The vehicle was being plied under permit but it met with an accident on 28.10.2014 during the validity of insurance policy but OP declined the valid claim of Rs.3 lakhs. That is why the present complaint of Rs. 3 lakhs alongwith interest at the rate of 18%pa, compensation of Rs. 2 lakh in lieu of deficiency of services and causing mental agony and harassment, cost of Rs. 33,000/- and other appropriate relief.
1.2. The OP opposed the complaint that neither there is any deficiency of services of OP nor any liability or cause of action has arisen against the OP vis-à-vis the claim was properly repudiated since the vehicle was being plied without holding valid and proper permit at that material time of accident, the permit being relied upon by the complainants was managed and obtained after accident, especially at the time of episode at 10am, it was not feasible that special permit could obtained on the same very day, since the office of RTO opens from 10 am to 5 pm. The complaint deserves dismissal.
2.1. (Case of complainants) –The complainants plied their vehicle on its regular permanent route from Delhi to Brij Ghat on permit valid from 10.07.2010 to 09.07.2015. However, there was an urgent booking by client and complainants was asked for move from Ghaziabad to Gazraulla and back, which was not covered/permissible under the existing permit. The complainants had to take temporary permission/permit from Ghaziabad RTO on 28.10.2014 to move to and fro from Ghaziabad to Gazraulla. But the bus met with an accident while moving Gazraulla Chowk to Anand Vihar and the bus/vehicle was damaged in the mishap.
2.2. The claim was lodged with the OP/insurer within time. The OP appointed its investigator M/s Lakhan Das Arora & Associates. The said investigator relied upon police report that the accident took place at 10 am. Whereas, the temporary/permit was obtained after 10 am on opening of the office of RTO. The accident took place around 12 (noon), which is also mentioned in the statement of an injured in the accident but injured's relatives confirmed the accident was at 10am. The investigator also reported that the vehicle was never booked by anyone since the passengers commuting were unknown to each other. On such basis the OP rejected the genuine claim of complainant.
2.3 The investigator had raised certain queries through letter dated 25.10.2015 and the same was responded by the complainants vide letter/reply dated 20.11.2015, 22.12.2015 and 13.01.2016. The claim was repudiated by the OP by letter dated 10.02.2016 on frivolous reasons and without considering the response of complainants.
The complainants approached the office of insurance Ombudsman but the award no. IO/NOI/R/GI/0034/2016-2017 was in favour of the insurer and against the complainants as complaint was dismissed. But the complainants suffered a lot for want of settlement of genuine and valid claim, it caused them harassment and mental agony. That is why the complaint.
2.4 The complaint is accompanied with documents/copies of – repudiation letter dated 10.02.2016, policy documents, certificate of registration/form no. 23, correspondence exchanged between the parties (referred above), police report, award dated 04.05.2016 by the office of Ombudsman, special temporary permit dated 28.10.2014 for journey/parties- to carry marriage party/reserve party/personal effect from Ghaziabad to Gazraulla exclusive for that single day of 28.10.2014.
3.1 (Case of OPs)-The OPs/Insured filed their written statement that the complaint is without cause of action, complaint is misconceived besides abuse of process of law, it is liable to be dismissed. There are twisting of the facts and to create illusion of cause of action.
3.2. The complainants were issued insurance policy valid from 27.05.2014 to 26.05.2015 in respect of the vehicle having State permit from Brij Ghat-Garh Mukteshwar-Delhi valid from 10.07.2010 to 09.07.2015. The vehicle met with an accident on 28.10.2014 at Gazraulla to Delhi route, for which complainants insist that they had obtained special route permit on the same day i.e. 28.10.2014.
As per FIR the accident took place at 10am but changed version of complainant is that accident took place at 12 noon. The surveyor appointed had conducted the investigation and concluded that the bus/vehicle was plying from Ghaziabad-Gazraulla without having valid and proper permit and the special permit referred was managed and obtained by the complainants from RTO, Ghaziabad, UP after occurrence of accident. One application under RTI was filed to the RTO by the investigator to ascertain time and date of issue of special temporary permit and in reply of RTI, the RTO mentions that special temporary permit was issued to Sh. Satender Pal Singh (complainant no. 1 herein) on 28.10.2014 during working hours, which are from 10 am to 5pm.
3.3 The complainant relies upon that permit for journey of a party and vehicle was booked by Sh. Yogender Singh but how it is feasible that a bus had proceeded from Ghaziabad to Gazraulla (which is around 80 km away) after obtaining special permit for a party on 28.10.2014 after 10 am and on completion of so called excursion while returning from Gazraulla to Delhi at around 12 noon and met with an accident carrying all unknown passengers, who had taken separate travelling tickets. The complainants were plying the vehicle without holding valid and proper permit. The OP has rightly repudiated the claim by letter dated 10.02.2016, it cannot be considered deficiency of services. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. (Replication of complainants) –The complainants filed their detailed rejoinder by responding each and every paragraph of the complaint, by reaffirming the contents of complaint as correct that the special permit, the complaint and the claim are valid. The accident had happened at 10 am. The injured had filed a claim petition before Presiding Office, MACT Delhi, wherein the plea of OP was declined and compensation was awarded, the complainants also filed copies of award by MACT, Delhi. There is no merit in the written statement.
5.1. (Evidence)- In order to prove the complaint, the complainant no.2 led evidence by filing detailed affidavit of evidence with documents filed with the complaint.
5.2. Similarly to prove the defense version, the OPs also led evidence by filing detailed affidavit of Shri Ajay Kumar Pandey, AO of evidence while fortifying with documents of insurance policy cover, report of investigator, statement of injured Anil Kumar, order of Ld. Insurance Ombudsman.
6. (Final hearing)- At this stage, the parties filed their written arguments. The parties were also given opportunity to make oral submissions, then Ms. Geeta Malhotra, Advocate for OPs made the submissions but no oral submissions on behalf of complainants. However, written arguments of complainants on record will also be considered.
7.1 (Findings) - The case of the parties, their contentions and material on record are considered and assessed besides the provisions of law. After taking into account totality of circumstances, the following conclusions are drawn:-
(i) According to complainants the timing of accident was 12noon (and not 10am) with their explanation that as per FIR, the accident had happened at 10am. The complainants also proved record of award in MACT No. 15381/2015 Anil Kumar [son of Shri Chetan Pal] Vs. Mohd. Kamil, Satender Pal Singh & National Insurance Co. and in the paragraph 2 of the award the facts of petition were mentioned that the timings of incident is 10 am of 28.10.2014 but in the conclusion of award, there is no specific findings about the timing of episode. On the other side, the OP has also proved the investigator’s report, containing the statement of Amit Kumar/injured son of Shri Chetan Pal, which was recorded on 14.11.2015 by investigator and he mentions that he boarded the bus at 11 am and the incident happened of bus turtle after some distance.
(ii) It is undisputed fact that the special permit was issued on 28.10.2014, it was specially meant for 28.10.2014 from Ghaziabad to Gazraulla and back and the special permit was for a Party. The timings of RTO Ghaziabad was from 10 am to 5 pm, meaning thereby the special permit would have been issued would be during office hours.
(iii) Since the special permit was taken for a party, it means the vehicle was booked by a single customer for entire seats . The complainants have not produced any evidence as to who had actually booked the vehicle for the party. In addition, the injured Amit Kumar in his statement to the investigator mentions that he took his ticket alike other passengers/commuters, meaning thereby there was no a single party, who booked the bus.
(iv) The complainants in their reply dated 20.11.2015 mentions (extract) “on that day, my bus reached at Brij Ghat, where the vehicle was stopped and all the persons, who were present in the bus went to Ganga Ghat for taking bath in the Holy River Ganga. In the meantime, I obtained the temporary permit from the RTO and I informed my driver with regard to that temporary permit and the bus was proceed towards Gazraulla, where on that day the vehicle met with the accident. It is correct my temporary permit was issued between 10.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m.”. Similar facts were reiterated by the complainants in their reply dated 22.12.2015.
What emerges from the own plea of complainants is, the complainants have started plying the vehicle, the commuters were picked and correspondingly that timings, the complainants also approached RTO Ghaziabad for special permit. It proves that when the journey was commenced, it was without permit for that route or special permit for the route for which there was no permission or route. It is violation of law and rules. It is breach of policy condition for which insurance policy was issued since vehicle was to be ply with valid permit.
7.2. In view of the conclusion in paragraph 7.1 above, the complainants failed to establish the case of deficiency of services against the OPs but the OPs have succeed prove their case against the complainants on the basis of documents of both sides and circumstances Therefore, the complaint fails. The complaint is dismissed.
7.3. However, this final will remain incomplete without mentioning that the present complaint has been tried and disposed off under summary procedure prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act 1986, therefore, any expression given in the present order would not construe any opinion on the other matter decided or pending before any Court or Tribunal.. With this observation, the complaint is disposed off.
8. Announced on this 04th day of December, 2024 [अग्रहायण 13, साका 1946]. Copy of this Order be sent/provided forthwith to the parties free of cost as per rules for compliances, besides to upload on the website of this Commission.
[Rashmi Bansal]
Member (Female)
[Inder Jeet Singh]
President
[ijs147]
***
