BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 124 of 2021.
Date of Institution : 05.07.2021.
Date of Decision : 09.04.2024.
Krishan Kumar aged about 48 years son of Shri Dhanpat Ram, resident of village Khinaniya, Tehsil Tibbi, District Hanumangarh (Rajasthan).
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. having its Divisional Office at LIC Building, Ground Floor, Near Gaushala, Abohar District Fazilkan (PB) through its Divisional Manager.
2. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Registered & Head Office New India Assurance Building, 87 Mahatma Gandhi Road, Fort, Mumbai- 400001 through its Managing Director.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Before: SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR ………………PRESIDENT
MRS.SUKHDEEP KAUR……………………….MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Sandeep Gaba, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. A.S. Kalra, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to OPs).
2. In brief, the case of complainant is that complainant is registered owner of a vehicle Truck (Open Body LPT) bearing registration No. RJ-13GA-6995 and same is being used by him exclusively for his own personal use and earning livelihood and as such his entire family is dependent upon the earning from the use of said vehicle. The complainant got insured the said vehicle from ops vide policy number 36070331190100006584 for the period 20.03.2020 to 19.03.2021. It is further averred that on 14.07.2020 around 7.30 p.m., the complainant was going towards village Madhosinghana from village Jamal on his said vehicle and when he reached near Punjab Head, village Jamal on account of short circuit in the wires of the vehicle, the same had suddenly started burning. The complainant tried to put off the fire at his own level but he could not succeed, hence the fire brigade was called at the spot and the fire was controlled but till that time almost/ entire vehicle was burnt. The complainant informed the said incident to the police of Police Post Jamal, District Sirsa on 15.07.2020 and a rapat has been lodged in this regard. It is further averred that complainant also informed about the incident to the ops through their representative upon which the ops appointed Manpreet Singh as Surveyor and then Ravi Aggarwal as Surveyor who also verified the incident and total loss of the vehicle. That thereafter on 20.07.2020 complainant lodged his claim with the ops and requested to indemnify his claim under the policy and also submitted all the requisite documents including estimate etc and he was assured that his claim shall be indemnified within some time. That thereafter complainant kept on approached the ops but they kept on avoiding the request of complainant with one false pretext or the other and ultimately on 18.03.2021 the ops vide repudiation letter repudiated his claim with the remarks that as per the report of their investigator, the road tax permit of the vehicle was valid for the State of Haryana up to 31.03.2020 and thereafter the permit was not got renewed and fee was not deposited for further period, hence the permit to ply the vehicle in the State of Haryana was not valid on the date of accident. That repudiation of claim of complainant is totally arbitrary, against law and facts and against the terms and conditions of the policy as well as against prevailing circumstances of lockdown due to Covid-19 and also against the legal and valid orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as Ministry of Road Transport and Highways Government of India vide which the Government of India extended the validity of the documents related to Motor Vehicles, Act, 1988 and Central Motor Vehicle Rules 1989 and further to consider relaxation in permit fees/ taxes etc. It is further averred that in view of the above, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways had issued an advisory dated 30th March, 2020 to all States and Union Territories regarding extension of validity of documents and same may be treated to be valid till 30th June, 2020 which was also extended till 30th September, 2020. That further sub section 3 (f) and 3(n) of Section 66 was also relaxed and advised to exempt from the requirement of permit to transport vehicle by the State Government and also relaxed in Clause (viii) of sub section 2 of Section 96 of MV Act 1988 to provide exemption from prescribed fee payable under Chapter V alongwith other relaxations which were well within the knowledge of ops since beginning till date but the ops in order to avoid their legal liability of indemnifying the claim of complainant under the said policy have intentionally and deliberately with false remarks of invalid permit have repudiated the claim of complainant illegally. This condition is not mandatory rather advisory and claim cannot be repudiated on this ground also. It is further averred that moreover, complainant at his own level tried his best to get the permit of the vehicle renewed from the authority concerned but due to lockdown on account of COVID-19, the movement was restricted and blocked strictly within and beyond the State and the offices were also not working and fee was not allowed to be deposited online or otherwise, which resulted into non renewal of the permit of the vehicle. That complainant has requested the ops several times to indemnify his claim but ops did not accept his requests and have caused unnecessary harassment and deficiency in service towards complainant. Hence, this complaint seeking direction to the ops to indemnify the claim of complainant under the policy by making payment of Rs.6,10,000/- as insured amount and also to pay further sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for harassment and also litigation expenses etc.
3. On notice, ops appeared and filed written statement raising certain preliminary objections that present complaint is not maintainable before this Commission as there is no deficiency in service in any manner on the part of answering ops in repudiation/ rejecting the claim of complainant. The claim lodged by complainant has been rejected/ repudiated by competent authority of ops in discharging their official duty, as for claiming own damage claim there is necessity of production of legal, valid documents of the relevant vehicle i.e. registration certificate, driving licence of driver, permit, fitness etc. in case of transport vehicle and without having any of above valid and legal documents, own damage claim cannot be paid, as parties to the contract i.e. insured and insurer are governed by the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and insured is bound to abide by the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act, Road Rules Regulations for seeking own damage claim. In the present complainant admittedly truck no RJ 13GA-6995 insured with answering ops was plied on road within the State of Haryana without having permit to ply the same when met with an alleged accident/ incident on 14.07.2020, hence repudiation is legal, justified and is in accordance with policy terms and conditions and the law laid down by the Courts. That complainant has concealed true and material facts and did not disclose that he never had any permit for State of Haryana. The complainant is intermingling two different tax i.e. tax E-receipt and permit to ply transport vehicle in another state. The vehicle of complainant is registered and same was having permit to ply transport vehicle for State of Rajasthan only. The notification of MORTH or State of Haryana or by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India giving relaxation during COVID had never stated that vehicle can be plied without license or permit, it has granted only relaxation about non renewal of the same during the COVID period and the case of complainant does not fall under the ambit of those guidelines or relaxation, hence complaint against ops is without any cause of action. It is further submitted that amount claimed by complainant is not payable by ops being of no legal contractual and legal liability. However, technical person approved Surveyor & Loss Assessor Mr. Ravi Aggarwal who assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.5,22,084/- after deducting the salvage value to the tune of Rs.20,000/- and policy clause to the tune of Rs.1000/- against the estimated loss of Rs.12,04,330/- but this amount as assessed by Surveyor has not been paid due to violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy, which are deliberate and willful. The COVID relaxation were available to those persons, who were already having documents but could not get the same renewed and this relaxation was not available to those, who does not have any kind of permission, right and authority to ply the transport vehicle without documents, otherwise also when a person is bringing his vehicle on road in another State, then he should have approached the relevant authority for permit for plying the vehicle in another State (Haryana) and all the facilities were available on portal of the Govt. That complaint is not maintainable as vehicle was registered, insured and operated for commercial purpose, hence this Commission has no jurisdiction, and that this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint as vehicle was insured with op o.1, claim was lodged there and order of repudiation has been passed by the op no.1 within the territorial jurisdiction of Fazilka (Punjab). On merits, the pleas of preliminary objections are reiterated and contents of complaint are denied to be wrong. It is also submitted that receipt supplied to insurance company has been proved to be receipt of payment of tax only and not for the fee for permit. It is denied that almost the entire vehicle was burnt. What was burnt and left is clearly mentioned in the spot survey report conducted by Mr. Manpreet Singh Bhasin Surveyor & Loss Assessor and final survey report conducted by Mr. Ravi Aggarwal Surveyor & Loss Assessor in presence of insured/ complainant. Permit of vehicle valid for the State of Haryana has not been produced by complainant till date and for want of permit, the claim was rejected/ repudiated. It is further submitted that if in the report of Investigator, it is written that road tax permit was valid for State of Haryana up to 31.03.2020 and thereafter permit was not got renewed, it will not make the complainant entitle by saying that his vehicle was having goods permit as required under the Motor Vehicle Act. Payment of road tax is different than the permit. It is further submitted that it is not a case of renewal of permit of State of Haryana, rather a case of having no permit for plying the vehicle in State of Haryana on 14.07.2020. All the documents can be applied, got issued and got renewed from the concerned authority by submitting the relevant papers, fee online. However, if complainant was having permit with him for plying the vehicle in State of Haryana on 14.07.2020, then he should have produced the same before the answering op and even if he is having the permit for plying the vehicle for State of Haryana and was not got renewed by him during COVID period, then certainly his case can be considered afresh, but as per record and report of investigator, the vehicle was plied in State of Haryana without permit, hence complaint is liable to be dismissed and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
4. The complainant in evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex. CW1/A and documents Ex. C1 to Ex.C19.
5. On the other hand, ops have tendered affidavit of Sh. R.K. Indora, Sr. Divisional Manager as Ex.R1, affidavit of Sh. Ravi Aggarwal, Surveyor as Ex.R2 and documents Ex.R3 to Ex.R6.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file.
7. Admittedly the vehicle of the complainant i.e. Goods Carrying truck bearing registration No. RJ-13-GA-6995 was insured with the ops for the period 20.03.2020 to 19.03.2021 under Commercial Vehicle Package Policy which fact is also evident from policy schedule cum certificate of insurance Ex.R6. According to complainant himself said truck was burnt in the area of Jamal, Haryana on 14.07.2020. The claim of the complainant regarding burning of the insured vehicle of the complainant during the period of policy has been repudiated by the ops on the ground of violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy as vehicle in question was being plied by the complainant without having any valid permit in the State of Haryana and the ops have repudiated the claim of complainant on the basis of report of Surveyor. Admittedly the vehicle is registered in the State of Rajasthan vide registration No. RJ-13-GA-6995 but at the time of incident of burning, the same was being plied in the area of Jamal i.e. in District Sirsa, Haryana. The complainant has not placed on file any permit for State of Haryana even with expiry date and as such it cannot be said that he was having any permit of State of Haryana which expired during Covid period and could not be renewed and as such the above said guidelines of Ministry of Road Transport and Highways Government of India regarding relaxation for renewal of documents relied upon by complainant as Ex.C12 to Ex.C14 are not applicable in this case because complainant was required to place on record the route permit for Haryana State though which would have been expired. Non production of the same clearly proves that he was not having route permit for Haryana and as such above said relaxation regarding non renewal of permit are not applicable in this case. Therefore, the authority of Hon’ble National Commission relied upon by learned counsel for ops in case titled as Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Vinod, RP No. 1087 of 2017 in Ap[peal No. 599 of 2014 decided on 12.12.2017 is applicable in this case. In that case it has been held by Hon’ble National Commission that “Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 12 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Sections 66 and 158 Liability of insurer- Undisputedly, the complainant possessed a permit to ply the vehicle in Haryana and did not have permission to ply the vehicle in Rajasthan- Therefore, at the relevant time the insured/ burnt vehicle was being plied in Rajasthan in contravention of the condition of the permit which required it to be plied only in the State of Haryana- Resultant, complaint dismissed.” Further, the Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Jarnail Singh B.M.R. Transport Parasad Bilaspur Chhatisgarh, RP No. 3885 of 2008 decided on 12.04.2016 relied upon by learned counsel for ops has held that “Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Sections 15, 17, 19 and 21 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Sections 66, 87 and 88 Insurance claim for damage caused to truck in accident- Repudiation of claim on ground that respondent was not possessing a permit of vehicle on the date of accident- Payment of toll tax and goods tax at entry point of State does not entitle vehicle to ply within State as these taxes relate to commodities being transported- No permit to ply in State of Himachal Pradesh and no temporary permit was taken before entering into State of Himachal Pradesh- Clear contravention of sections 66, 87 and 88 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988- Fundamental contravention of terms and conditions of policy- Insurance Company/ petitioner justified in repudiating claim- Violators of law cannot deserve any concessional treatment- Order of State Commission quashed and order of District Forum upheld. Both the above judgments of the Hon’ble National Commission relied upon by learned counsel for ops are also fully applicable in this case. No law contrary to it has been produced by learned counsel for complainant. Since the vehicle in question was being plied by complainant in the state of Haryana without any permit though in expired condition, therefore, ops have rightly repudiated the claim of complainant for violating the terms and conditions of insurance policy. When the complainant was not having any permit for State of Haryana, therefore, it cannot be said that same could not be renewed.
8. In view of our above discussion, we do not find any merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed but with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced. Member President
Dt. 09.04.2024. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
