Haryana

Ambala

CC/123/2010

RAJBIR SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

NIA.CO - Opp.Party(s)

RAJESH KUMAR

27 Apr 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

 

            Complaint Case No.    : 123 of 2010

Date of Institution       :  13.04.2010

            Date of Decision         :   27.04.2016

Rajbir Singh son of Shri Muni Lal R/o village Dhurali, Post office Bara, Tehsil & District Ambala.

                                                                                                                                                 ……Complainant.

 

                                                                                                            Versus

The New India Assurance Company Ltd. 6269, Nicholson Road, Ambala Cantt through its Divisional Manager.

 

                                                                                                                                                                            ……Opposite Party

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

 

CORAM:        SH. A.K. SARDANA, PRESIDENT.

                        SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER.            

Present:          Sh. Rajesh Sharma, Adv. counsel for complainant.

                        Sh. Mohinder Bindal, Adv. counsel for OP.

 

ORDER.

                        Present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter in short called as the ‘Act’) has been filed by the complainant alleging therein that  he got  insured his Truck bearing regn. No.HR56/1533 w.e.f. 09.05.2008 to 08.05.2009 with the OP. On 20.02.2009, due to heavy fog, a truck bearing regn. No.HR37-A/4249 struck against the truck of complainant from back side  and due to the impact of accident, truck of complainant  turned turtle and got damaged badly. Driver of the truck also received simple injuries and a DDR in this regard was lodged at police post Nahar Lali, P.S. Lalru.  Complainant took the truck  for repair at Ambala and an estimate of Rs.1,02,000/- was made out. On 25.02.2009, claim intimation letter was given to OP whereupon OP got verified the facts through its Surveyor and issued a letter dated 28.04.2009 to complainant for supplying the documents and the complainant supplied the entire documents to the opposite party. But despite various requests and visits, OP did not released the claim rather issued a letter dated 07.08.2009 to fulfill some formalities, to which complainant complied with. However, OP on 10.09.2009 issued a letter to the complainant with the remarks ‘we are closing your file as no claim’. It has been contended by complainant that he has paid taxes to the Registration Authority upto 31.12.2009 and route permit was valid w.e.f. 26.02.2007 to 25.02.2010 and the truck was authorized to drive in Punjab as he had paid route permit tax to Punjab Govt. w.e.f. 08.01.2009 to 31.12.2009 and the fitness of the truck was valid upto 17.02.2009. On 17.02.2009, complainant went to Transport Department for issuance of further Fitness Certificate and the department  received Rs.500/- from the complainant on 17.02.2009 and issued a receipt to this effect vide no.42 qua deposit of fee and told the complainant to come on coming Monday; but in the meantime, truck met with an accident on 20.02.2009.  It has been further contended by the complainant that when the OP refused to reimburse the claim, complainant got repaired his truck  by incurring a sum of Rs.1,02,000/- on it.  As such, the complainant has contended that the Op is deficient and played unfair trade practice with him. Hence, the present complaint seeking relief as per prayer clause has been preferred  by him.

2.                     Upon notice, OP appeared through counsel and filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua non-maintainability of complaint, suppression of material facts and no cause of action has arisen to complainant to file the present complaint. On merits, it has been urged that after the accident on 20.02.2009, claim of the complainant was entertained and Dr. Sudhir Dhingra  was appointed as Independent Surveyor  to access the loss  who visited the workshop at Haryana Motor Market, Ambala City and inspected the vehicle and submitted his detailed report dated 21.03.2009  to the effect that actual loss has occurred to the tune of Rs.37187/- and after considering the report of surveyor & other facts of the case, claim of complainant was repudiated as the complainant failed to provide the fitness certificate. As such, OP has prayed that the complaint may kindly be dismissed with costs since there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP.  

3.                     To prove his contention, counsel for complainant tendered affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW1/A and documents as Annexures C-1 to C-16 and closed the evidence whereas on the other hand, counsel for OP tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. B.L. Jagwan, D.M., Er, Sudhir Dhingra & Sh. Rajesh Sharma, Surveyors as Annexures RX,RY & RZ respectively alongwith documents as Annexures R-1 to R-5 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP.

4.                     We have heard learned counsels of both the parties and gone through the records minutely. Counsel for complainant vehemently argued that vehicle of complainant met with an accident on  20.02.2009 when the vehicle was fully insured with OP but despite making all the formalities with the OP, they repudiated the claim of complainant.   In support of his case, counsel for complainant relied upon  case law titled as G.Kothainachiar Vs. UIIC Ltd. & Ors.  2008(1) CLT Pg. 55 (National Commission) wherein it has been observed that “Admittedly insured was having fitness certificate for more than 10 years.  It expired only on 30.05.1995 i.e. before 20 days of the accident.  The certificate could not be obtained because of physical ill-health of the insured as contended. Further, as per the RTO Inspector’s report, the vehicle was in good condition for plying at the time of accident and  in these circumstances, the repudiation of claim by Insurance Company is not justified rather the claim is required to be considered & settled on Non-standard basis”.

                        On the other hand, counsel for OP argued that complainant failed to submit fitness certificate of the vehicle in question which is violation of terms & conditions of the insurance policy. So, the claim of complainant was rightly repudiated by OP and supported his version by placing reliance on case law titled as UIIC Ltd. Vs. Trilok Kaushik 2011(1) CLT Pg. 541 (N.C.) and UIIC Ltd.  & others Vs. G.Kodhainachiar 2005(1)CLT Pg. 631 (Tamil Nadu State Commission) wherein it has been held that “Insurance Claim-There was no fitness certificate at all relating to the vehicle as required by Section 84 of the Act of 1988-Accident had occurred while the vehicle was put to use in contravention of  the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act  and breach of conditions of permit –complainant cannot succeed in maintaining the claim much less to make a profit out of his own error or omissions and commissions-Repudiation of claim held justified”.

5.                     At the very outset, it is not disputed between the parties to the complaint that the vehicle in question was insured with OP on the day of accident.  Upon intimation by complainant, Sh. Sudhir Dhingra, Surveyor appointed by the Ops who assessed loss caused to the vehicle to the tune of Rs.37187/- but the claim of complainant was repudiated by OP on the very ground that the vehicle in question was not having fitness certificate on the very day of accident. Perusal of document Annexure C-14 reveals that  fitness of the vehicle was valid upto 17.02.2009 whereas the accident took place on 20.02.2009 meaning thereby that on the day of occurrence, the vehicle in question was not having ‘Fitness Certificate’. Further complainant has placed on record document Annexure C-15 which is receipt of Rs.500/- dated 17.02.2009 issued by Transport Department, Haryana whereby  he  intends to contend that  as soon as fitness of the vehicle expired, he applied for the  same with the authorities concerned whereas OP has placed on record documents Annexure R-4 & R-5 whereby office of R.T.A. Ambala has reported that vehicle in question was granted certificate of fitness on 16.03.2009 for one year i.e. upto 15.03.2010 meaning thereby that vehicle in question was  not having fitness certificate  on the day of accident i.e. 20.02.2009 being admittedly expired on 17.02.2009.  Therefore, in our view only issuance of the receipt does not entitle the complainant that his vehicle is having valid ‘Fitness Certificate’ and authorizes him to ply it on road. This receipt may be a fee for entertaining the application of complainant for fitness certificate but fitness is issued only after inspection of vehicle by the Motor Vehicle Inspector or the officer/official appointed for the said purpose but complainant has nowhere pleaded in the complaint that vehicle in dispute was inspected by the concerned authority & declared the vehicle fit for plying prior to the day of accident and report was awaited. Thus, we have no option except to discard the submission of complainant.  Further, the case laws submitted by the Op are  fully applicable to the facts of the present case whereas case law submitted by complainant differ from the facts of the present case.

                        In view of the facts discussed above, finding the complaint without any substance is dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced: 27/04/2010                                                                  Sd/-

                                                                                               (A.K. SARDANA)

                                 PRESIDENT                

 

                                                                                                       Sd/-

          (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                                                            MEMBER