BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAPURTHALA.
Complaint No. 69 of 2020
Date of Instt. 30.10.2020
Date of Decision :28/10/2024
Sangat Singh son of Makhan Singh r/o Ward No.7, Begowal, District Kapurthala.
....Complainant Versus
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Hussainpur Micro Office (360908) Opp. Gate No.2, RCF Hussainpur, Kapurthala through its Branch Manager.
...Opposite party
Complaint under Consumer Protection Act
Quorum: Before: Sh. Rajesh Bhatia (President)
Mrs. Rajita Sareen (Member)
S. Kanwar Jaswant Singh (Member)
Present: Sh. Prince Kaushal, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Nitish Arora, Advocate for the OP.
Order
Mrs. Rajita Sareen (Member)
1. FACTS OF COMPLAINT
The Complainant has preferred this complaint , under section 35 of The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (in short, “ THE ACT”) against the opposite party i.e. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., claiming the following reliefs to them :
i) to settle the claim of petitioner as per claim lodged by him amounting to Rs. 3,04,811/- with the opposite party.
ii) to pay Rs. 50,000/- as damages on account of mental tension, harassment and agony being suffered by the complainant on account of acts of the opposite party.
iii) to pay Rs. 25,000/- as litigation expenses.
In brief, the allegations made by complainant in its complaint are that complainant purchased one tractor mark Mahindra & Mahindra ltd, Swaraj 963, bearing registration No. PB 57-C-2901 and the said tractor was duly got insured with respondent vide insurance policy No. 36090831190100001102, which was valid from 25/9/2019 to 24/9/2020. Unfortunately the said tractor met with an accident on 3/11/2019 during the subsistence of the aforesaid policy. The matter was duly reported to the opposite party who appointed Mr. Anil Kumar & Co. as Surveyor to assess the loss and as per instructions of the opposite party, the complainant deposited all the requisite documents alongwith bills but inspite of settling the claim of complainant; the opposite party sent letter dated 28/2/2020 whereby asked the complainant that neither RC was applied nor any tax was paid by the complainant on the date of accident and complainant was asked to explain the same. After that complainant served a legal notice to the opposite party for not settling the claim of complainant but it was not replied by the opposite party. Aggrieved by the opposite party, the complainant filed the present complaint.
2. DEFENCE OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES :
Notice of the complaint was given to the OP and accordingly OP appeared through counsel and filed its written reply by contesting the allegations made by complainant that the complainant had lodged claim of the Tractor Make Mahindra & Mahindra Swaraj bearing Registration No. PB57-C-2901 with the opposite party on 10/12/2019. The said vehicle was insured with the opposite party. Immediately on the receipt of information of the damage caused to the aforesaid tractor in alleged accident which occurred on 3/11/2019. M/s Arun Kumar & Company were appointed as surveyor, who assess the loss, who after inspection of the damage caused to the tractor of the complainant has submitted their report dated 26/2/2020, assessing loss to the tune of Rs.1,57,920.50/-. In the said survey report, it was pointed out by the surveyor that at the time of alleged accident i.e 3/11/2019 registration certificate of the tractor was not applied and taxes were not paid. On receipt of the survey report by the opposite party. letter dated 28/2/2020 was written to the complainant asking for the reason for not applying the RC and paying taxes in respect of tractor in question. Thereafter reminder dated 7/3/2020 and 16/3/2020 were sent to the complainant by the opposite party but no reply whatsoever were received by the opposite party from the complainant. The policy of insurance in respect of the tractor in question was issued as per the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act and as per the said Act, nobody can drive any vehicle on a public place without registration certificate. Thus there is breach of condition of policy of insurance exonerating the opposite party to pay the claim amount to the complainant. The complainant has no Locus standi and cause of action to file the present complaint. On merits, the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merit and the same may be dismissed.
3. The complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of OP reiterating the allegations made in the complaint and controverting those made in the written statement.
4. EVIDENCE OF THE PARTIES :
I) To prove his case, the complainant has tendered an affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C16 as evidence.
II) The Counsel for the opposite party on the other hand have tendered affidavits Ex. OP1/A and Ex. OP1/B along with documents Ex. OP1 to OP9, to prove its version.
5. CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES -
a) COMPLAINANT – The counsel for the complainant contended that the complainant purchased one tractor mark Mahindra & Mahindra ltd, Swaraj 963, bearing registration No. PB 57-C-2901 and the said tractor was duly got insured with respondent vide insurance policy No. 36090831190100001102, which was valid from 25/9/2019 to 24/9/2020. The said tractor met with an accident on 3/11/2019 during the subsistence of the aforesaid policy. The matter was duly reported to the opposite party where upon opposite party appointed Mr. Anil Kumar & Company as Surveyor to survey the matter. Accordingly, the survey of the opposite party visited the site and inspected the vehicle. Surprisingly complainant received letter dated 28/2/2020 wherein it was alleged that since complainant has not got prepared the RC at that time nor paid the taxes on the date of accident and asked the reason for not applying the RC of the same. The complainant personally visited the office of opposite party and handed over the copy of the registration certificate which was registered on 18/11/2019. The complainant paid the requisite charges to the concerned agency for the preparation of the RC and if there is any delay in making of the RC, there is no fault on the part of complainant. Secondly, opposite party has got no right to raise any such objection at the time of settlement of the claim. Inspite of giving details thereof, opposite party again send two reminders to complainant instead of settlement of claim of complainant. Ultimately the complainant served the opposite party with a legal notice dated 18/5/2020 requiring the opposite party to settle the claim of the complainant within 15 days but inspite of having received the said notice, the opposite party failed to comply with the same nor settled the claim of the complainant nor it had responded to the said notice. There was no delay on the part of complainant in not preparing the said RC and secondly the same has got no concern with opposite party and opposite party are required to settle the claim as per the insurance policy purchased by complainant and prayed for the relief claimed.
b) OPPOSITE PARTY - Learned Counsel for the OP, while arguing on the similar lines of reply and written arguments filed, admitted that the complainant had lodged claim of the Tractor Make Mahindra & Mahindra Swaraj bearing Registration No. PB57-C-2901 with the opposite party on 10/12/2019. The said vehicle was insured with the opposite party. Immediately on the receipt of information of the damage caused to the aforesaid tractor in alleged accident which occurred on 3/11/2019. M/s Arun Kumar & Company were appointed as surveyor, who assess the loss, who after inspection of the damage caused to the tractor of the complainant has submitted their report dated 26/2/2020, assessing loss to the tune of Rs.1,57,920.50/-. In the said survey report, it was pointed out by the surveyor that at the time of alleged accident i.e. 3/11/2019 registration certificate of the tractor was not applied and taxes were not paid. Upon this, letter dated 28/2/2020 was written to the complainant asking for the reason for not applying the RC and paying taxes in respect of tractor in question. Thereafter reminder dated 7/3/2020 and 16/3/2020 were sent to the complainant by the opposite party but no reply whatsoever were received by the opposite party from the complainant and vehemently contested by referring to various judgements of Hon'ble NCDRC & Hon'ble Apex Court. The counsel for opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint.
6. CONSIDERATION OF CONTENTIONS :-
We have given our thoughtful consideration to the respective contentions of both the parties and after taking into consideration the entire facts as elaborated on the file, the merit of the case is as below,
The complainant has proved insurance of the damaged vehicle i.e. Tractor vide Ex. C2 which covers the period from 25/9/2019 to 24/9/2020. The same is not denied by the opposite party. The complainant has produced bills of the workshop for the repair work done as the damage was caused to the tractor due to accident Ex. C3 to Ex. C6. The photographs of the damaged tractor are produced as Ex. C12 to Ex. C16.
Opposite party has filed affidavit of Senior Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co. wherein the opposite party has admitted that the vehicle was insured with the opposite party. On receipt of intimation of the damage caused to the aforesaid tractor in alleged accident which occurred on 3/11/2019, M/s Arun Kumar & Company were appointed as surveyor, to assess the loss, who after inspection of the damage caused to the tractor of the complainant has submitted their report dated 26/2/2020, assessing loss to the tune of Rs.1,57,920.50/-. In the said survey report, it was pointed out by the surveyor that at the time of alleged accident i.e 3/11/2019 registration certificate of the tractor was not applied and taxes were not paid. On receipt of the survey report by the opposite party. letter dated 28/2/2020 was written to the complainant asking for the reason for not applying the RC and paying taxes in respect of tractor in question. Thereafter reminder dated 7/3/2020 and 16/3/2020 were sent to the complainant by the opposite party but no reply whatsoever was received by the opposite party from the complainant. The opposite party has further alleged that the policy of insurance in respect of tractor in question was issued as per the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act and as per the said Act, nobody can drive any vehicle on a public place without registration certificate as per Section 39 of the Motor Vehicle Act. The survey report produced as Ex. OP3 clearly states that at the time of alleged accident i.e. on 3/11/2019 R.C. Of the tractor was not applied and taxes were not paid.
In the present complaint all other facts like sale and insurance of tractor are admitted. The only issue for consideration is whether the complainant had applied for the R.C. or paid the due taxes for the preparation of R.C. on the date of accident or not?
7. The complainant has alleged in Para No.4 of it's complaint that complainant paid the requisite charges to the concerned agency for the preparation of the RC and if there is any delay in making of the RC, there is no fault on the part of complainant. Similar allegation is made by the counsel for complainant in the legal notice issued to opposite party. The same has been replied through counsel for the OP wherein all the allegations have been specifically denied. Further the complainant has not impleaded the said Agency as party in the present complaint. No proof of payment made to the concerned agency for preparation of RC is produced on the record from where it could be ascertained that on which date the complainant paid the required fee for the RC. So, in absence of any such proof, it can't be believed; that the complainant had already applied for the RC. As per settled law, it is upon the complainant first to prove it's case by producing cogent evidence.
8. Perusal of survey report Ex. Op5 reveals that the surveyor had given remarks about verification of documents. Remark No. 5 reads as under:-
“As on date of accident RC was not applied & taxes were not paid. Please check this aspect before finalization of claim”.
Further perusal of reminders issued by opposite party Ex. OP5 & OP6 makes it clear that complainant was asked to tell the reason for not applying for the RC and not paying the taxes on the date of accident.
We do not find any document filed by complainant in reply to these reminders. Rather complainant has produced R.C. of the vehicle as Ex. C1. The date of registration on this R.C is 18/11/2019 whereas the date of accident is 3/11/2019 which proves that RC was not prepared on date of accident. The complainant had not produced any document like any filled up form required for getting the R.C. or any “fee” deposited by the complainant to any private agency or RTA Office to prove that on which date the amount for preparing the RC was deposited. The main objection taken by the opposite party is that since the insurance policy is issued in accordance with the Motor Vehicles Act and Section 39 of the Act debars every person to drive on road any vehicle without its R.C. and the complainant was plying the vehicle on road without the RC on the date of accident. The Opposite party has relied upon various judgements in case titled as
Kalyan Singh Chauhan Versus National Insurance Company 2014(4) AICJ 517 R.C.R. (Civil) 121
Lalaram Versus Oriental Insurance Company 2016 (4) C.P.J. 158
Achambhit Prasad Versus Oriental Insurance Company 2017 (2) C.P.J. 270
4. Din Dayal Versus National Insurance Company Ltd. and Anr. C.P.C. 400 : 2012 (54) R.C.R. (Civil) 234
Further the counsel for OP has also relied upon case titled as “United India Assurance Co. Ltd. Versus Sushil Kumar Godara”, CIVIL APPEAL No. 5887 of 2021 wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has clearly held that
“Here in the present complaint also there is nothing on record to suggest that the respondent had applied for registration or that he was awaiting registration on the date of accident. Further no document has been produced to show that there was unwanted delay by the RTA Office in issuing the RC as alleged”.
10. From above all discussion, we are of the considered opinion that complainant has failed to prove the allegations made against the OP. As such, we do not find any merit in the the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
11. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated
28/10/2024
S. Kanwar Jaswant Singh Rajita Sareen Rajesh Bhatia
Member Member President
