Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/14/528

Baljeet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

National Ins.Co.Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

27 Feb 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

       C.C. No: 528 of 01.08.2014

                                                                      Date of Decision:27.02.2015

Baljeet Singh son of Sh.Rattan Singh, resident of Satguru Street, New Model Town, Sahnewal, Distt. Ludhiana. 

……Complainant

                                                     Versus          

National Insurance Company Limited, having its branch Office No.VII, G.T.Road, Dhandari Kalan, Ludhiana, through its Branch Manager.

                                                                                    ……...Opposite Party

        Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.

         

Quorum:     Sh.R.L.Ahuja, President.                 

                   Sh.Sat Paul Garg, Member.             

                   Ms.Babita, Member.

                 

Present:       Sh.Govind Puri, Adv. for complainant.

Sh.Pardeep Kumar Arora, Adv. for Op.

 

ORDER

R.L.AHUJA, PRESIDENT

 

1.                Present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after in short to be described as ‘Act’) has been filed by Sh.Baljeet Singh(hereinafter in short to be referred as ‘complainant’) against National Insurance Company Limited, having its branch Office No.VII, G.T.Road, Dhandari Kalan, Ludhiana, through its Branch Manager (herein-after in short to be described as ‘Op’)- directing them to pay the claim of Rs.2,49,374/- paid by the complainant to Dada Motors Pvt. Ltd., for getting his vehicle in question duly repaired alongwith interest @12% p.a. from the date of rejection of the claim till the actual payment besides to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.11,000/- as costs of litigation to the complainant.

2.                In brief, the case of the complainant is that the complainant is the owner of Mini Truck make Telco Ltd, bearing registration No.PB10-CS-3827 and the complainant is using the said vehicle for earning his livelihood. The said vehicle was insured with OP vide insurance policy No.401314/31/11/6300002091 which was effective from 9.11.2011 to 8.11.2012.  The aforesaid vehicle met with an accident on 13.3.2012 and the vehicle was damaged badly in the said accident and DDR bearing No.9 dated 13.3.2012 was registered with the police of P.S.Sahnewal, District Ludhiana. The said accident took place with one bus bearing registration No.HR-65-7107 which was going ahead of truck of the complainant and when a stray animal all of sudden came in front of the said bus, the driver of the bus suddenly applied the break and the driver of the truck of the complainant also applied the break, but the truck dashed into the backside of the aforesaid bus in question and front portion of the truck was totally damaged in the said accident. The complainant lodged the claim with the OP which was duly registered vide claim No.401314/31/11/6190000230 and the complainant also submitted all the required documents for the processing of the said claim with the OP alongwith all the bills of expenditure made by the complainant for getting the vehicle in question repaired which was repaired from Dada Motors Pvt. Ltd. on payment of final bill of Rs.2,49,374/- by the complainant. However, the OP rejected the said genuine claim of the complainant vide letter dated 6.6.2013 stating that the vehicle in question was not having valid fitness certificate on the date of accident on 13.3.2012. The complainant has been regularly getting the fitness certificate renewed from the Motor Vehicle Inspector. However, due to over sight, the complainant could not get the fitness certificate renewed from the Motor Vehicle Inspector well in time. Merely by not getting the fitness certificate renewed within time does not make the vehicle in question unfit for driving/plying on the road. The illegal rejection of the genuine claim of the complainant has caused a lot of harassment, mental tension and agony to the complainant. Such act and conduct of repudiating the claim of the complainant is claimed to be deficiency in service on the part of the OP by the complainant. Hence, this complaint.

3.                Upon notice of the complaint, OP was duly served and appeared through Sh.Pardeep Kumar Arora, Advocate and filed the written reply, in which, OP took up certain preliminary objections that present complaint of the complainant is not maintainable as per law as the claim of the complainant falls within the definition of ‘No Claim’ since the complainant has breached and violated the terms and conditions of the policy and provisions of Motor Vehicle Act. The complainant is liable to be estopped to file the present complaint for his own act and conduct as he himself has admitted that vehicle in question was not carrying certificate of fitness at the time of accident. The driver of the alleged vehicle was not holding an effective and valid driving license to drive the MTV vehicle at the time of accident, which is the violation of mandatory condition of the policy, hence, the complaint deserves dismissal on this score. The vehicle in question, which is a Transport Vehicle(Mini Truck) having registration No.PB-10-CS-3827 was not validly registered to drive in any public place for the purpose of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, as it was not carrying a certificate of fitness at the time of accident, which amounted to breach of condition of the policy by the driver/owner of the vehicle in question. The owner/driver did not take all reasonable steps to maintain the motor vehicle in efficient condition for driving, as the vehicle in question was not fit to drive at the time of accident. The alleged claim of the complainant is in-genuine, exaggerated and not according to the terms and conditions of the policy. The answering OP company deputed approved surveyor for assessment of loss of alleged vehicle by making it clear that mere deputation of surveyor would not tantamount to admission of liability of whatsoever nature. The competent authority deputed an independent surveyor agency M/s R.P.Gupta & Company for assessment of loss, who calculated the net assessed loss as Rs.1,67,600/- but the said claim is not payable by the answering OP as per the terms and conditions of the policy. On merits, it is submitted that the driver of the vehicle in question Mr.Ramanjeet Singh was not holding an effective driving license to drive the Transport vehicle and the vehicle in question bearing registration No.PB-10-CS-3827 was also not validly fit to drive, as it was not carrying fitness certificate at the time of accident as the fitness certificate  of the vehicle in question had already been expired on 20.12.2011 and the driver/owner of the vehicle in question was not using/driving the said vehicle, otherwise than in accordance with the limitation as to use, without holding an effective driving license to drive the vehicle in question, which is a Medium Transport Vehicle (MTV) and thereby breached the terms and conditions of the policy. As the complainant breached and violated the terms and conditions of the policy, hence the claim of the complainant falls in the exception clause of the policy as ‘No Claim’. Otherwise, similar pleas were taken as mentioned in the preliminary objections and at the end, denying any deficiency in service on the part of the answering Op and all other allegations of the complainant being wrong and incorrect, answering OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

4.                In order to prove the case of the complainant, learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Ex.CA in which, he has reiterated all the allegations made by him in the complaint. Further, learned counsel for the complainant has proved on record the documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6.

5.                On the other hand, in order to rebut the case of the complainant, learned counsel for the OP adduced evidence by placing on record affidavit Ex.RA of Sh.Parmod Jain, its Senior Branch Manager, in which, he has reiterated all the contents of written reply filed by OP and refuted the case of the complainant. Further, learned counsel for the Op tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RB of Sh.R.P.Gupta, Prop.M/s R.P.Gupta & Company, Ludhiana, who was deputed as surveyor and loss assessor by the Op in order to conduct the survey and assess the loss suffered by the vehicle in question, in which, he has proved his report Ex.R5 alongwith documents Ex.R1 and Ex.R2. Further, learned counsel for the OP has proved on record documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R5.

6.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record on the file very carefully.

7.                Admittedly, the complainant is the owner of the vehicle in question bearing registration No.PB-10-CS-3827 Ex.C2 which was insured with the OP vide insurance policy No.401314/31/11/6300002091 Ex.C1 which was valid from 9.11.2011 to 8.11.2012 on payment of premium. Further, it is an admitted fact on record that the vehicle in question met with an accident on 13.3.2012 and the same was badly damaged and DDR No.9 dated 13.3.2012 Ex.C3 was registered with the concerned police station. Further, it is an admitted fact between the parties that the claim was lodged by the complainant qua the vehicle in question which was duly registered and processed by the OP and Sh.R.P.Gupta, Prop of M/s R.P.Gupta & Company, Ludhiana was appointed as surveyor and loss assessor by the OP in order to assess the loss suffered by the vehicle in question, who after his thorough inspection, submitted his detailed report dated 16.4.2012 Ex.R5 assessing the net loss to the tune of Rs.1,67,600/-. However, the OP has repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 6.6.2013 Ex.C6 on the ground that since his vehicle was not having valid fitness certificate as on the date of accident i.e. 13.3.2012, his claim was repudiated.

8.                As per the contention of the learned counsel for the complainant is that due to oversight, the complainant could not get the fitness certificate renewed from the Motor Vehicle Inspector well in time. On the other hand, there is specific contention of the learned counsel for the OP that the vehicle was not roadworthy at the time of accident as fitness certificate had expired and the driver of the complainant was driving the vehicle in question against the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 as well as terms and conditions of the insurance policy and in this way, the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.

9.                During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the complainant has conceded to the fact qua the expiry of the fitness certificate at the time of accident and the same could not be got renewed well in time due to oversight. However, he has contended that even if it is presumed that if there is any violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the claim of the complainant cannot be rejected in toto and the same can be settled on non-standard basis. Though, learned counsel for the OP has opposed the settlement of claim on non-standard basis with the contention that since the vehicle of the complainant was being plied by him in violation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 without getting the fitness certificate of the vehicle from the concerned Motor Vehicle Inspector and as such, OP has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant.

10.              Perusal of the evidence of the parties reveals that there is nothing on record, from which, it could be presumed that accident of the vehicle in question took place due to any defect in the vehicle or the vehicle was not in order at the time of accident. Rather, there is specific assertion of the complainant that accident took place with one bus bearing registration No.HR-65-7107 which was going ahead of truck of the complainant and when a stray animal all of sudden had come in front of the said bus, the driver of the bus had suddenly applied the break and the driver of the truck of the complainant had also applied the break, but the truck dashed into the backside of the aforesaid bus in question and front portion of the truck was totally damaged in the said accident. Though, the OP had repudiated the claim of the complainant in toto. However, it is a well settled principle of law that if there is any violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the claim of the complainant cannot be rejected in toto. However, the same can be settled on non-standard basis in view of the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India titled as Amalendu Sahoo vs. Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd.-2010-ACJ-1250 and National Insurance Co;.Ltd vs. Nitin Khandewal-2008-ACJ-2035, vide which, the claim of the insurer was ordered to be settled on non-standard basis, in case of violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy.

11.               In view of the above discussion and law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, we hereby partly allow this complaint and as a result, direct the OP to settle and pay the claim of the complainant on non-standard basis as per the surveyor report dated 16.4.2012 Ex.R5 and as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy to the complainant, failing which, Op is liable to pay interest @9% p.a. from the date of lodging of claim till its realization. Further, Op is directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.7000/-(Seven thousand only) to the complainant on account of mental pain, agony and harassment suffered by the complainant and Rs.3000/-(Three thousand only) as litigation costs to the complainant. Compliance of order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order which be made available to the parties free of costs. File be completed and consigned to record room.

 

(Babita)                (Sat Paul Garg)              (R.L.Ahuja)

 Member                 Member                       President    

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:27.02.2015

Gurpreet Sharma.