DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ROPAR
Consumer Complaint No.66 of 2021
Date of institution: 15.09.2021
Date of Decision: 19.09.2022
Vijay Kumar aged 36 years son of Jagat Ram, resident of Village Dhani, PO Massewal, Tehsil Anandpur Sahib, District Rupnagar
…….Complainant
Versus
- New India Assurance Company Limited, through its Branch Manager, Kiratpur Sahib, Tehsil Anandpur Sahib, District Rupnagar
- Branch Manager of New India Assurance Company Limited, having Branch office at Kiratpur Sahib, Tehsil Anandupr Sahib, District Rupnagar
……..Opposite Parties
Complaint under Consumer Protection Act
QUORUM
SH. RANJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT
SMT. RANVIR KAUR, MEMBER
ARGUED BY
Sh. Chetan Kumar Gupta, Adv. For complainant
O.Ps No.1 & 2 ex-parte
ORDER
SH. RANJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT
The present order of ours will dispose of the above complaint filed under Consumer Protection Act, by the complainant against the Opposite Parties on the ground that the complainant is the owner of truck bearing registration No.PB-12-Q-3899. The complainant had purchased the insurance policy from the OPs which was valid from 23.8.2018 to 22.08.2019. On 15.06.2019, the truck in question met with an accident at Neelon Bridge, Tehsil Samrala, District Ludhiana. The complainant was intimated to the OP and OP deputed a surveyor. Original bill of repair Rs.2,40,000/- along with all documents were given to the surveyor. On 28.01.2020, the complainant received a letter from the opposite party asking for basic permit of truck. The complainant met with OP and apprised them that the basic permit is valid till 01.05.2022. Even otherwise, National Permit always means a permit granted by the appropriate authority to the owner of a motor vehicle authorising him to operate as a public carrier throughout the territory of India or in such contiguous States, not being less than five in number including the State in which the permit is issued. Lastly, the complainant received a letter dated 12.3.2020 intimating that since document has not been supplied, the claim has been closed as No Claim not pursued by insured. Thus, alleging deficiency in service, the complainant sought the following relief against the OPs:-
- To pay the claim amount of Rs.2,40,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum and burdened with special cost
- To pay Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation
- To pay Rs.50,000/- as litigation expenses
- Any other relief in the interest of justice, equity and fair play which this Court deems fit.
2. Upon notice, the OPs have chosen to remain exparte vide order of this Commission dated 03.02.2022.
3. The learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C9 and closed the evidence.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the file, carefully and minutely.
5. The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant is the owner of truck in question and had purchased the insurance policy for that truck. Unfortunately, on 15.06.2019, the vehicle met with an accident. The complainant immediately informed to the OPs and OPs deputed a surveyor. Thereafter, the OP demanded basic permit of truck from the complainant and he supplied the same to the Insurance Company but on 12.3.2020, the complainant received a letter vide which the OPs closed his claim as document has not been supplied. Lastly prayed to allow the present complaint with cost.
6. Since the OPs have chosen to remain ex-parte and otherwise also the evidence of the complainant appears to be cogent, reliable and trustworthy. We have no alternative except to believe the contents of the complaint as well as documentary evidence attached with the complaint by the complainant. It is, proved on the file that the complainant had supplied the required document i.e. basic permit of truck, even, the complainant has placed on record the same in support of his version i.e. Ex.C1, in which it is clearly mentioned that “names of States/Union Territories for which the permit is valid”. The learned counsel for the complainant also placed on record the Authorization Certificate of NP (Goods) Ex.C2, in the said document, in column No.9 Validity of NP Authorization upto 02.05.2020 and validity of basic good permit upto 01.05.2020. So, from the said document, it is clear that at the time of accident, the complainant is having valid basic goods permit. So, the ground of repudiate the claim of complainant by the OPs is not justified.
7. It is pertinent to mention here that the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, is benevolent legislation enacted to help the poor consumers, which are being regularly harassed by the unscrupulous traders, who even after receiving the money do not provide the proper services to the consumers. We feel that the very purpose of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, will fail if such types of traders are not brought to book and asked to pay compensation.
10. In view of our above discussion, we allow the present complaint and O.Ps are directed to pay the claim amount of Rs.2,40,000/- along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of repudiation the claim of the complainant. It is further ordered that the O.Ps. will pay a an amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.30,000/- and Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses. The OPs are further directed to comply with the above said order within 30 days from the date of receiving of copy of this order. Free certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. The file be indexed and consigned to record room.
September 19, 2022
(Ranjit Singh)
(Ranvir Kaur)
