Punjab

Patiala

CC/19/11

Avtar Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

National Insurance company LTD - Opp.Party(s)

Sh Baljinder Singh Tiwana

12 Apr 2023

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/ 11/2019
Date of Institution	:	10.1.2019
Date of Decision	:	12.4.2023

 

Avtar Singh aged about 41 years son of Ramesh Chand, resident of H.No.7-B, Khalsa Nagar, Bhadson Road, Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1. National Insurance Company Limited, Branch office, 25, Factory Area, Upkar Nagar, Patiala (Punjab) through its Manager.
2. National Insurance Company Limited, Regional Office 4^th Floor, Grand Walk Mall, Ferozpur road, Ludhiana.
3. H.R.Automobiles Near jain Petrol Pump, Hira Bagh, Rajpura Road, Patiala through its Authorized Dealer Force Motors Ltd.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act

 

QUORUM

                                      Hon’ble Mr.S.K.Aggarwal, President

                                      Hon’ble Mr.G.S.Nagi,Member         

 

PRESENT:                   Sh.B.S.Tiwana, counsel for complainant.

                             Sh.B.L.Bhardwaj,counsel for OPs No.1&2

                             Sh.Rakesh Malhotra, counsel for OP No.3.        

                                     

 ORDER                                          

1. The instant complaint is filed by Avtar Singh (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against National Insurance Company Limited and another (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s) under the Consumer Protection Act (for short the Act).
2. The averments of the complainant are as follows:
3. That tourist Maxi Cab/2015/PB-01-A-7942 of the complainant met with an accident in the month of February,2018 when the same was driven by him . An amount of Rs.95242/- was spent for the repair of the same from HR Automobiles vide invoice dated 14.2.2018.
4. Said vehicle was duly insured vide insurance cover note No.401704165053 for the period 1.9.2017 to 31.8.2018, issued by OP No.1. Despite filing of application for claim and personal requests made by complainant his claim was not settled by OP No.1, as a result of which complainant suffered mental agony, harassment and financial loss. Complainant also sent legal notice dated 15.11.2018 to OPs No.1&2 but even then OPs did not pay any heed to the request of complainant. There is thus not only deficiency in service but also unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. Consequently, prayer has, thus, been made for acceptance of complaint.
5. Upon notice, OPs appeared through respective counsels and filed separate written statements having contested the complaint.
6. In the joint written statement filed by OPs No.1&2 it is submitted that complainant was not holding valid fitness certificate in respect of Tourist Maxi Cab in question at the time of alleged accident. It is admitted that subject vehicle was insured with the OPs for the period 1.9.2017 to 31.8.2018. On receipt of intimation of accident of said vehicle, Sh.K.K.Singhi, Surveyor and Loss assessor was deputed to carry out the survey and loss assessment of the vehicle in question, who vide his report dated 13.3.2018 assessed loss/damage to the tune of Rs.52,479/-, excluding an amount of Rs.1500/- on account of salvage of the damaged parts. No FIR was lodged by the complainant and also complainant did not get spot verification done. The fitness certificate submitted by the complainant was found not to have been issued by the State Transport Authority, Punjab, Chandigarh as per verification report of the Investigator. Complainant was requested to clarify the same vide letters dated 6.4.2018, 3.5.2018 and 26.9.2018 but complainant did not furnish any clarification. Since the said vehicle of the complainant was not holding valid fitness certificate at the time of alleged accident, hence his claim was repudiated by the OPs vide letter No.400000/Claim Hub/2018 dated 20.12.2018, as per laid down procedure and as per the terms and conditions of the insurance company. Receipt of legal notice is admitted by the OPs. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs No.1&2 and the complainant is not entitled to any claim. After denying all other averments, OPs prayed for dismissal of complaint.
7. In the written statement filed by OP No.3, it is submitted that Tourist Maxi Cab/2015/PB-01-A-7942 was got repaired from the firm of OP No.3. An invoice dated 14.2.2018 for a sum of Rs.95,242/- was issued by OP No.3 for  its repair. After denying all other averments, OP No.3 prayed for dismissal of complaint.
8. In evidence, ld. counsel  for the complainant furnished affidavit of the complainant,Ex.CA, copy of Driving licence,Ex.C1, copy of invoice,Ex.C2, copy of cover note,Ex.C3, copies of legal notice,Exs.C4 &C5, postal receipts,Exs.C6 &C7, copy of Aadhar card,Ex.C8 and closed evidence.
9. On the other hand, ld. counsel for OPs No.1&2 has tendered in evidence affidavit, Ex.OPA of Sh.Bhupinder Singh Malik, Branch Manager, NIC, copy of surveyor report dated 13.3.2018 (18 pages),Ex.OP1, copy of insurance policy,Ex.OP2, copy of letter dated 3.5.2018,Ex.OP3, copy of letter dated 26.9.2018,Ex.OP4, copy of letter dated 14.12.2018,Ex.OP5, copy of letter dated 20.12.2018,Ex.OP6, copy of insurance cover note,Ex.OP7, copy of fitness certificate/verification report,Ex.OP8, copy of intimation letter,Ex.OP9 , application for summoning the witness,Ex.OP10, copy of zimni order dated 15.11.2019,Ex.OP11, original fitness verification certificate,Ex.OP12, copy of instructions of invalidity of certificate of fitness by OPs dated 15.3.2019,Ex.OP13 and closed evidence.
10. Ld. counsel for OP No.3 tendered in evidence, Ex.OPB affidavit of Aditya Garg, Partner of M/s HR Automobiles and closed evidence.
11. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
12. Admittedly, tourist max cab of the complainant, bearing registration No.PB-01-A-7942 was insured with OPs No.1&2 vide policy,Ex.C3 valid for the period 1.9.2017 to 31.8.2018. The vehicle in question met with an accident during February/2018 while the same was driven by the complainant. A claim of Rs.95242/- for repair of the vehicle was lodged with the OPs which was repudiated by them on the ground that the complainant was not having a valid fitness certificate for the vehicle.
13. The OPs have submitted that survey and loss assessment of the vehicle was done. Vide survey report, Ex.OP1 loss to the tune of Rs.52479/- was assessed. Complainant was then asked to submit various documents for settlement of claim through letters dated 3.5.2018, Ex.OP3 and 26.9.2018, Ex.OP4. He was also asked to clarify about the validity of the fitness certificate as the surveyor of the OPs had pointed out that  fitness certificate was not found as per the records of the issuing authority. The same was then got verified by the OPs vide letter dated 14.12.2018, Ex.OP12, whereby it has been reported by the Motor Vehicle Inspector, State Transport Authority Punjab, Chandigarh that, Passing of vehicle No.PB-01-A-7942 i.e. vehicle in question which has been shown upto 15.10.2018 is not correct as per the records of the office and has not been issued by his office’. The claim was then repudiated by the OPs vide their letter dated 20.12.2018, Ex.OP6.
14. OPs have also relied upon the judgment in the case of Bahdur Singh Vs. The Permanent Lok Adalat and others CWP-20389-2019 decided on 25.7.2019 by the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, wherein it has been held that the insurance claim has been rightly repudiated by the Insurance Company in the absence of valid fitness certificate.
15. In the case titled as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Trilok Kaushik IV(2010)CPJ 321(NC), the provisions of Section 42 and Section 38 of the Motor Vehicle Act have been discussed and it has been held that no transport vehicle can be used at any public place without a valid permit. In other words a transport vehicle without a valid permit cannot be plied on the road and for violation of the said provisions there is penal liability under Section 123 of Motor Vehicle Act.

Section 38 of the Motor Vehicle Act envisages that in the absence of fitness certificateof transport vehicle, the same shall not be deemed to be validly registered for the purposes of Section 22 unless it carried certificate of fitness in Form H as set forth in the First Schedule, issued by the prescribed authority.

Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, in the case titled as Gurdeep Singh Vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. in First Appeal No.142 of 2013 decided on 22.4.2013, wherein Section 66 of Motor Vehicle Act has been discussed and appeal of the plaintiff has been dismissed .

16. In view of the discussions above, we are of the opinion that the claim of the complainant has been rightly repudiated by the OPs as the complainant was not having a valid fitness certificate of the vehicle at the time of accident. As such the complaint is dismissed. Parties are to bear their own costs.
17.           The instant complaint could not be disposed of within stipulated period due to Covid protocol and for want of Quorum from long time.
85109252238716.  

DATED:12.4.2023

                                              G.S.Nagi                           S.K.AGGARWAL

                                              Member                          President