Punjab

Sangrur

CC/115/2015

Balbir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

New India Insurance Co.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Venu Gopal Johar

13 Aug 2015

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                             

                                                                     Complaint no. 115                                                                                                 

                                                                     Instituted on:  12.03.2015

                                                                     Decided on:    13.08.2015

 

Balbir Singh  son of Moti Singh r/o  Village Buraj, Tehsil Malerkotla, District Sangrur.

                                                        …. Complainant.      

                                         Versus

1.     New India Insurance Company Limited, New India Assurance Building, 87, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Fort Mumbai-400001 through its Managing Director.    

2.     The Manager, New India Insurance Company Limited Ranbir College Road, Sangrur.  

         ….Opposite parties.

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:    Shri V.G.Johar, Advocate                          

 

FOR THE OPP. PARTIES  :     Shri Ashish Kumar, Advocate                     

 

Quorum

         

                    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

K.C.Sharma, Member

Sarita Garg, Member

                 

ORDER:  

 

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

 

1.             Balbir Singh, complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that he got his Tata 4018   bearing registration number PB-13AL-7185 insured from the OPs for the period from 19.08.2014 to 18.08.2015.  The said vehicle met with an accident on 16.09.2014. At that time  it was having national permit which was issued prior to the date of accident  which also covered  the State of Punjab and is valid throughout the territory of India. An intimation about the accident was given to the OPs who sent a surveyor to examine the aforesaid vehicle. At opposite party’s behest the vehicle was got repaired and a total sum of Rs. 3,48,352/- was raised as bill for repair but the OPs wrongly passed the amount of Rs.1,55,520/-. The OPs have not made the payment till date on the ground that vehicle of the complainant did not have the requisite permit at the time of accident. The OPs did not make it mandatory for the insured vehicle at the time of insuring the said vehicle that the OPs will only pass the claim in case of accident when the vehicle would be having permit from State of Punjab. The OPs had sent repudiation letter to the complainant repudiating the claim on wrong grounds without considering the national permit issued under the Motor Vehicle Act to the vehicle in question. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:- 

i)      OPs be directed to pay an amount of Rs.3,48,352/-along with interest @12% per annum,  

ii)     OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.100000/- as compensation   on account of mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses.

2.             In reply filed by the OPs, it has been stated that  after receiving the intimation dated 16.09.2014 regarding the accident, the OPs immediately deputed Er. Rajesh Aggarwal, Surveyor and Loss Assessor for spot survey who submitted his report dated 04.10.2014. The company also deputed M/s M.L. Mehta & Company, surveyor  for submitting final report who submitted his report dated 06.10.2014 after assessing Rs.1,55,764/- as loss after deducting 50% on rubber/ Plastic parts. The complainant was asked to submit permit of Punjab State as the vehicle in question was registered  in Sangrur but the complainant produced  national permit in place of Punjab permit. The National permit along was not sufficient to ply the vehicle in the State of Punjab without Punjab permit. The vehicle could not be plied on the road without Punjab permit. In the present case accident took place on 16.09.2014 at 8:30 AM and the insured applied for the permit on the same day but at 10:47 AM i.e. after the accident. In case if the national permit alone was sufficient then what was the necessity to apply for Punjab State Permit.  The complainant breached the mandatory terms and conditions of the policy as such claim was not payable. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.  

3.             The complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-24 and closed evidence. On the other hand, OPs have tendered documents Ex.OPs 1&2/1 to Ex.OPs1&2/10 and closed evidence.

4.             Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the OPs have wrongly repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that the vehicle  was having National Permit   which was not sufficient to ply the vehicle in the State of Punjab without Punjab permit. He has further argued that  in the policy document Ex.C-1  which is also Ex.OPs1&2/1 wherein  it has been written only word “ permit” and there is nothing mention about the national permit or state permit.  It has been argued by the learned counsel for the complainant that in copy of National permit  Ex.C-6 it  has been specifically mentioned  that this is valid  throughout the territory of India.

5.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs has argued that  vehicle in question was registered in the office of DTO Sangrur but the complainant produced the National permit  in place of Punjab permit which was not sufficient  to ply the  vehicle in State of Punjab without  Punjab permit, so the claim of the complainant has been rightly repudiated.

6.             We have gone through the entire record and heard the learned counsel for the parties. From the perusal of policy document Ex.C-1 which has also been produced by OPs as Ex.OPs1&2/1 on record we find that only word” permit” is mentioned and there is no mention regarding the National permit or State permit.  Moreover, it is also clear  from the document Ex.C-6 which is copy of National permit dated 15.12.2014 of the complainant’s vehicle  that  it is valid throughout  the territory of India. The Ops have not produced any cogent evidence which proves that the National permit alone is not sufficient to ply the vehicle in State of Punjab and Permit of State of Punjab is also necessary for the same purpose.

7.             Another aspect of the case is that if  the State Permit was necessary then at the time of issuing the insurance policy and receiving the premium  the OPs should have demanded  the state permit  from the complainant which they had not demanded and the vehicle was insured only on the basis of National permit by the OPs. So, we are of the opinion that the complainant has valid National permit.  In his report , the surveyor has also admitted  that the permit is valid.  As such, we are of the view that the Ops are deficient in service by repudiating the genuine claim of the complainant on the ground that the permit is not valie.

8.             The last  and only question which arises is regarding quantum of claim amount.  The OPs had appointed  three surveyors. Firstly, Er. Rajesh Aggarwal Surveyor and Loss Assessor  was deputed for spot survey who submitted his report dated 4.10.2014 which is Ex.OPs1&2/4 and second surveyor was M/s M.L.Mehta & Company Surveyor & Loss Assessor who submitted its final survey report dated 6.10.2014 after assessing Rs.1,55,764/-  which is Ex. OPs1&2/5. Third and last time M/s M.L.Mehta & Company  has submitted its re-inspection report dated 6.10.2014 which is Ex.OPs1&2/6 on record. But the OPs have not paid any claim amount to the complainant and repudiated the claim only on the basis of not having valid permit which point has already be discussed above.  So, we are of the considered view that ends of justice would be met to the complainant, if the amount so assessed by the surveyor is paid by the Ops to the complainant.      

9.             So, in view of the above discussion, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OPs to make the payment of Rs.1,55.764/- as assessed by the surveyor vide his report EX.OPs1&2/5 to the complainant along with interest @9% per annum from the date of repudiation of the claim till realization. We further order the OPs to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.20,000/- being the amount of compensation on account of mental pain, agony and harassment.  We also order the Ops to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses.    

10.           This order of ours shall be complied with  within 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order.  Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.                 

Announced

                August 13, 2015

 

 

( Sarita Garg)           ( K.C.Sharma)           (Sukhpal Singh Gill)                                                                                       Member                 Member                          President

 

 

BBS/-