Haryana

Sonipat

18/2015

BALROOP SINGH S/O BALBIR SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

AMIT KUMAR

29 Jun 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

               

 

                                Complaint No.18 of 2015

                                Instituted on:20.01.2015

                                Date of order:17.07.2015

 

Balroop Singh son of Balbir Singh, resident of village Rasoi, tehsil and distt. Sonepat.

…Complainant.         

Versus

 

National Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Office at KD Complex, in front of Gurudwara, old DC road, Sonepat.

                                                     …Respondent.

 

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. Amit Kumar Advocate for complainant.

           Sh. HC Jain, Adv. for respondent.

 

Before-    Nagender Singh-President.

Prabha Wati-Member.

DV Rathi-Member.

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondent alleging himself to be the registered owner of car make Tata bearing no.HR-69AT/8520 which was insured with the respondent for the period 11.12.2013 to 10.12.2014.  But on 31.11.2013 unfortunately, the said vehicle met with an accident and was badly damaged.  The vehicle was brought to Swan Motors, Sonepat for its repair, where the technicians issued the bill to the tune of Rs.78000/- on 25.1.2014 and the same was paid by the complainant to the said repairer.  The complainant immediately informed the respondent about the said accident and Shri OP Mehta surveyor thoroughly enquired about the accident and also inspected the damaged vehicle.  The complainant has lodged his claim with the respondent.  The complainant received a letter dated 14.3.2014 from the respondent which was addressed to Swan Motors, in which, respondent has asked the complainant why his claim should not be closed as NO Claim in the absence of valid fitness certificate. After receiving the said letter, the complainant requested the respondent to settle his claim, but of no use. The respondent issued another letter dated 24.11.2014 vide which the respondent repudiated the claim of the complainant and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        In reply, the respondent has submitted that  the vehicle no.HR69AT/8520 is a taxi(commercial transport vehicle) which was being driven at the time of alleged occurrence without fitness certificate which is mandatory document in case of commercial vehicle and in the absence of valid fitness certificate, no liability can be fastened upon the insurance company.    As per report dated 6.3.2014 of Secretary, RTA, Sonepat, the vehicle no.HR69AT-8520 was passed upto 12.2.2015 w.e.f. 13.2.2014 for the purpose of fitness certificate, whereas the alleged occurrence took place on 31.12.2013 i.e. prior to the issuance of fitness certificate.    The damage to the vehicle were assessed by the surveyor to the tune of Rs.59687/-. However, the respondent is not liable to pay the said amount also to the complainant in the absence of any valid and effective fitness certificate and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.        We have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties at length.  All the documents have been perused very carefully and minutely.

          Ld. counsel for the complainant has submitted that the respondent has wrongly and illegally repudiated the legal and genuine claim of the complainant for which he was entitled to.  He has further submitted that the complainant has not violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy in any manner and thus, the demand of fitness certificate of the vehicle as raised by the respondent is not genuine.  In support of his contention, he has relied upon the case law titled as G.Kothainachiar Vs. United India Ins. Co. Ltd.  2007(IV) CPJ page 347(NC).

          On the other hand, ld.counsel for the respondent has submitted that the vehicle no.HR69AT/8520 is a taxi(commercial transport vehicle) which was being driven at the time of alleged occurrence without fitness certificate which is mandatory document in case of commercial vehicle and in the absence of valid fitness certificate, no liability can be fastened upon the insurance company.    As per report dated 6.3.2014 of Secretary, RTA, Sonepat, the vehicle no.HR69AT-8520 was passed upto 12.2.2015 w.e.f. 13.2.2014 for the purpose of fitness certificate, whereas the alleged occurrence took place on 31.12.2013 i.e. prior to the issuance of fitness certificate.    The damage to the vehicle were assessed by the surveyor to the tune of Rs.59687/-. However, the respondent is not liable to pay the said amount also to the complainant in the absence of any valid and effective fitness certificate.

          Ld. Counsel for the respondent has also argued while relying on Section 56 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

          In the present case, the complainant’s vehicle met with an accident on 31.11.2013. As per the report placed on record by the respondent company as R1, the fitness certificate of the vehicle was issued for the period 13.2.2014 to 12.2.2015.  So, as per the respondent, the complainant is not entitled for any relief.

          But keeping in view the law on which the complainant has relied upon, we find no force in this contention of the respondent.  As per the report of JD Rawal, Surveyor and loss assessor, the damage to the vehicle were assessed to the tune of Rs.59687/-. In our view, the complainant is entitled to get the amount as assessed by the surveyor i.e. Rs.59687/-.  Accordingly, we hereby direct the respondent to pay the amount as assessed by the surveyor i.e. Rs.59687/- (Rs.fifty nine thousands six hundred eighty seven) to the complainant within a period of one month from the date of passing of this order, otherwise, the above said amount shall fetch interest at the rate of 09% per annum from the date of this order till realization.

          With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed.

          Certified copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

(Prabha Wati)        (DV Rathi)                 (Nagender Singh-President)

Member DCDRF        Member DCDRF                   DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced:17.07.2015