Charanjit Singh, President

1        The complainant has filed the present complaint by invoking the provisions of Consumer Protection Act under Section 34, 35 and 36 against the opposite parties on the allegations that the complainant has purchased the new vehicle Ashok Leyland Ecomet 1214 Smart Truck Canter having Engine and Chassis No. KDHZ407044 MB1AA3GCD6KRDC8225 from Globe Auto Part (Regd) and paid an amount of Rs. 15,26,110/-.  The complainant has taken Insurance Cover from the opposite Party having policy No 233308/31/2020/1440 valid from 10:54 on 23.9.2019 to midnight of 22.9.2020 with regard to New vehicle Ashok Leyland Ecomet 1214 Smart Truck canter temporary no PB08/TMP/2019/5105 Truck bearing registration No PB02-DW-4978 having Chassis No MB1A3GCD6KRDC8225 Engine No. KDHZ407044 model 2019 type of body open. The policy was offered by opposite party to complainant at Tarn Taran District Tarn Taran and the opposite party has issued the policy at Tarn Taran and it was accepted by the complainant at Tarn Taran and premium was also paid to opposite party at Tarn Taran which was duly received by the opposite party at Tarn Taran. After purchasing the above said vehicle the complainant used the vehicle for his personal use and on 16.10.2019, after unloading of cement goods and on returning back to Tarn Taran from village Mugalchack Pannaun via Daleke, when the vehicle in question reached near about village Palasour while returning back to Tarn Taran suddenly some stray cows came in front of the truck of the complainant and in order to save them the Driver Harjit Singh of the empty truck of the complainant overturned and was badly damaged regarding which information was given to the police Post Town Tarn Taran under P.S. City Tarn Taran and vide rapat No.21 dated 16.10.2019 police has registered the version of the complainant after investigating and inspecting the spot. Thereafter, the complainant intimated about the accident to the opposite Party who sent one Sh Vineet Mahajan alleged to be surveyor of the company who took Rs 2000/- as charges from the complainant. The opposite party gave the assurance even at the time when on his advice the complainant obtained the insurance policy through him as he is authorized official of the insurance company, the opposite party promised and assured the complainant that at the time of any need or unexpected incident they will be available and will help to avail the benefit of the policy at the time of need whenever if any untoward incident occurred in near future. The said surveyor namely Vineet Mahajan came at the spot where the accident took place clicked the photographs of the damaged vehicle and make the assessment of the loss/damaged to the vehicle and assured the complainant that soon the opposite party will intimate with regard to sanction of the amount by the insurance company as assessed by the surveyor. Thereafter, the complainant regularly approached personally as well as telephonically and even visited so many times in the office of opposite party to settle his claim but the opposite party assured the complainant to have the vehicle in question got repaired from the agency and the opposite party will settle all the bills incurred on the vehicle as the vehicle is new one as fully insured with the opposite party and on the full assurance of the opposite party complainant got repaired his vehicle as per Job Card dated 7.11.2019 from Globe Auto Part and cost of repair of the vehicle of the complainant was Rs. 6,57,909/- which he paid through various bills for repair, purchasing new parts and services charges, as the bills with regard to the repair as well as the parts purchased by the complainant for making the vehicle in running condition are with the complainant. It is further necessary to inform the opposite parties that the complainant has spent Rs.6,57,909/- by obtaining loan from market at the higher rate of interest. When the vehicle was in order and repaired by the agency, the complainant requested the opposite party to clear all the bills of the agency but the opposite party gave lame excuses and in order to avoid any hitches complainant arranged the amount of Rs.6,57.909/- other expenses incurred paid from his pocket and got the vehicle released from the agency. The complainant approached number of times to the opposite party but no satisfactory reply was given by the opposite party and the opposite party always gave lame excuses to the complainant and thereafter on 15.6.2020 the opposite party repudiated the claim of the complainant by just merely objecting that a valid route permit at the time of accident was not available. Within the purchase of the New vehicle Ashok Leyland Lcomet 1214 Smart Truck canter bearing Engine & Chassis No. KDHZ407044 MBIA3GCD6KRDC8225 and within just 15 days the untoward accident occurred regarding which Rapat No 21 dated 16.10.2019 was registered and the driver of the said vehicle was Harjit Singh son of Ajaib Singh resident of VPO Pandori Gola Tehsil and District Tarn Taran. The temporary certificate of registration was issued to the above said vehicle by the State Transport Department from Jalandhar Punjab on 1.10.2019 and same was valid for the period of 1.10.2019 to 31.10.2019 and thereafter the registration certificate (RC) of the said vehicle was issued later on and the objection raised by the opposite party is totally vague one just in order to harass the complainant and grab the valuable amount of complainant as the time  of accident when the RC was not issued by the State Transport Department and temporary certificate of registration was in existence and how complainant can apply for a permit. The above said Vehicle in question was plying in the Tarn Taran area which is even evident from the rapat and hence no national permit or state permit is required in the local area and above all when the vehicle is NEW and purchased just few days ago i.e. 15 days hence RC was not issued by the State Government as the same was in process and only thereafter the complainant can apply for the requisite permit. The opposite party just in order to harass, humiliate and grab the valuable money has repudiated the genuine claim of the complainant and even after the repudiation of the claim the opposite party officials at higher level were given false assurances to the complainant that they are trying to settle their claim at higher level due to which complainant was waiting for till today so that the opposite party may fulfill their commitments but now finally they refused that higher authority are not interested in settling the claim so the complainant is at liberty to knock the door of this Commission. Till today the opposite party has not paid any claim which was assessed by the surveyor. Finally on dated 15.6.2020 the company wrongly repudiated the claim of the complainant without any justified cause by just simply stating that there is NO VALID ROUTE PERMIT. The vehicle is new just few days ago the same was purchased and at the time purchase vehicle was got fully insured from the Opposite Party for the period of which commence from 23-9-2019 to 22-9-2020 and thereafter complainant applied for the fitness and inspection of the vehicle and requisite fees was deposited vide receipt No PB19100728175700/PB2D191000002183 dated 9.10.02019. The complainant after receiving the fitness applied for registration of the said vehicle and deposited requisite money vide receipt no PB17100728175700/PB2D191000003350 dated 14.10.02019 and unfortunately on 16-10-2019 the vehicle in question met with an accident and after that RC was issued by the RTO Amritsar and as per law permit of the vehicle has to be applied only when registered RC is issued by the State Transport Department and in the present case just within few days from the purchase of the vehicle, said truck met with an accident and it was further pertinent to mentioned here that state Govt. has issued a temporary certificate of registration to the complainant which was valid for the period of 1.10.02019 to 31.10.2019, as such if registered RC is not issued by the State Government at the time of accident which was duly applied by the complainant but despite that the opposite party repudiated the genuine claim of the complainant and further the officials of the opposite party gave false assurances to the complainant and linger on the matter and delayed the process of the complainant to file the present complaint, due to which the complainant has suffered a lot and huge amount was spent by the complainant and even if the complainant has paid interest for the same as the money was taken as a friendly loan and spent on the vehicle on its repair to which the officials of the opposite party flatly refused to accept the genuine claim of the complainant and without any right and title the case was repudiated of the complainant on mere a baseless objection of NO VALID ROUTE PERMIT. The intentions of the Opposite party from the day one were malafide one they were least interested to give all the benefits of compensation despite repudiating the claim of the complainant the officials of Opposite Party gave false assurance, that they will try their level best to settle the claim of the Complainant, as they have send the case for review to the Higher Authorities but the case was never send for review, only false assurances were given by the Officials of the Opposite Party. The complainant was having valid insurance policy of opposite party company on the day of accident. All the requirements as per his policy was fulfilled but inspite of that the opposite party intentionally harassed, torture the complainant by not moving forward the file of the complainant for getting the claim from the insurance company with regard to amount spent by the complainant of his damaged vehicle which was insured with the opposite party company The complainant also approached the opposite party many times but he delayed the matter on one pretext or the other. The complainant has prayed that the opposite party may be directed to return the expenses spent on repair of vehicle i.e. Rs. 6,57,909 and compensation amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- and Rs.50,000/- miscellaneous expenses spent by the complainant and the opposite party be also correct to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation and Rs. 25,000/- as litigation expenses. Alongwith the complaint, the complainant has placed on record affidavit of complainant Ex. C-1 alongwith documents Ex. C-2 to Ex. C-21.

2        Notice of this complaint was sent to the opposite party and opposite party appeared through counsel and filed written version by interalia pleadings that complaint is not maintainable in the present form. The complainant has not come to the commission with clean hands. He is guilty of concealment of true and material facts as such he is not entitled to the relief claimed in the complaint. The complainant himself has concocted a false story and put forward wrong facts just in order to seek the present relief and further just in order to harass, humiliate the opposite party and further in order to gain monitory benefits. This Commission has no jurisdiction to try and entertain this complaint. The complainant was not possessing Valid route Permit and other papers at the time of alleged accident.  A false and concocted story has been put forward by the complainant just in order mislead this Commission. The complainant has given information of accident to opposite party but the claim of the complainant was rightly dismissed on 15.6.2020 by the opposite party on the ground that the "the vehicle was being plied without valid route permit at the time of accident as the accident took place on 16.10.2019 and the route permit is valid from 4.11.2019 to 3.11.2024 as such claim of the complainant was dismissed on ground of no valid route permit at the time of accident. The claim of the complainant was dismissed on 15-06-2020 by the opposite party on the ground of no valid route permit. The complainant was having valid insurance policy from the opposite party but the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated on the ground of the no valid route permit by the opposite party. The complainant has taken insurance cover from the opposite party. As per report Ex. OP-6 penalty was imposed for permit. The opposite parties have denied the other contents of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the same.  Along with the written version, the opposite party has placed on record self attested affidavit of opposite party Ex. OP1 along with documents Ex. OP2 to OP6.

3        We have heard the Ld. counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record.

4        In the present case, insurance of the vehicle in question is not disputed because the opposite party itself placed on record insurance cover note Ex. OP-5 in which period of insurance is mentioned from 23.9.2019 to 22.9.2020.  The total Insured Declared Value (IDV) of the vehicle is mentioned as Rs. 16,00,000/- on the insurance policy. It is also not disputed that the vehicle in question met with an accident because in para No. 5 of the on merits, the opposite party itself admitted that the vehicle was being plied without valid route permit at the time of accident as the accident took place on 16.10.2019. As such, the opposite party itself admitted that the vehicle in question met with an accident. Moreover, the complainant has placed on record Rapat Roz Namcha No. 21 dated 16.10.2019 Ex. C-7 in which it has specifically mentioned that truck met with an accident.  The complainant has also placed on record invoice of Globe Auto regarding the repair of truck Ex. C-8 in which total amount of repair is mentioned as Rs. 6,57,909/-. The complainant has also placed on record statement of account of Globe Auto Parts Ex. C-9 which supports amount of Rs. 6,57,909/- qua the repair bills of the truck. In this way, the complainant has spent an amount of Rs. 6,57,909/- on the repair of the truck. But the opposite party has repudiated the claim of the complainant vide Ex. OP-4 which is reproduced as follows:-

We were reported a claim under your policy No. 233308/31/2020/1440___ with date of accident 16.10.2019____________

Accordingly Sh. Vineet Mahajan surveyor was deputed for spot survey and then Sh. Vivek Nayyar was deputed for final survey.

As per the final survey report, the vehicle was being plied without valid route permit at the time of accident . So the competent authority has repudiated your claim of Rs. 5,77,438/- on the ground of no valid route permit at the time of accident.

The stand of the opposite party in the written version and stand of the opposite party in the repudiation letter is quite contradictory because in the repudiation letter the opposite party alleges that “Sh. Vineet Mahajan surveyor was deputed for spot survey and then Sh. Vivek Nayyar was deputed for final survey”. But Para No. 5 of on merits of written version, the opposite party pleaded that “It is denied that any surveyor namely Vineet Mahajan was ever appointed and sent by the opposite party on the spot”. The opposite party cannot blow hot and cold on the same breath. Furthermore to prove their version, neither the opposite party has placed on record report of surveyor regarding the amount of Rs. 5,77,438/- as alleged in repudiation letter nor any affidavit of said surveyor has been placed on record by the opposite party.

5        The opposite party has repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that the complainant was not having any valid route permit at the time of accident. However, during the course of arguments the complainant has placed on record a copy of requirements for applying the route permit of the vehicle, whereby, it is mentioned as follows:-

          You must take note of the below list of documents needed for getting motor vehicle permits are:

          1.       Application form number 46 and 48 as mentioned above

          2        Certificate of registration of the Vehicle

          3        Vehicle’s Fitness Certificate

          4        Certificate of Insurance of the Vehicle

5        Tax Payment proof for the present Quarter to the Homebased

State

6        National Permit Fee

7        Demand drafts in favour of the Transport Authorities agreed

for other states for the payment of ……

It is pertinent to mention here that to apply the valid route permit registration of the vehicle is must as per the requirements of the concerned authority. In this matter, as per Ex. C-4 a temporary certificate of registration of vehicle in question was issued by the transport department which was valid from 1.10.2019 to 31.10.2019. However, permanent certificate of registration was issued to the complainant on 16.10.2019. Meaning thereby the complainant duly registered the vehicle within one month of issuing of temporary certificate. The accident took place on 16.10.2019 and the certificate of registration was also issued on 16.10.2019. As per the requirement of valid route permit, the registration certificate of the vehicle is must. But in this matter, the complainant could not obtain the valid route permit because he has obtained the registration certificate on 16.10.2019.  In the above mentioned circumstances, the complainant could not get the time for applying the valid route permit as on the day of accident of the vehicle in question, the complainant was not in possession of the permanent Registration certificate of the vehicle as accident took place on the same day. So complainant is not at fault because the above mentioned circumstances were beyond his control.  However, in the meantime he applied for valid route permit and made the payment on 4.11.2019 as per Ex. C-13. In these circumstances, the complainant could not obtain the valid route permit because the same can be applied only after obtaining the permanent certificate of registration of the vehicle in question.  The opposite party has wrongly repudiated the claim of the compliant on the ground which was beyond control of the complainant.  Furthermore, It is usual with the insurance company to show all types of green pastures to the customer at the time of selling insurance policies, and when it comes to payment of the insurance claim, they invent all sort of excuses to deny the claim. In the facts of this case, ratio of the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of DharmendraGoel Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., III (2008) CPJ 63 (SC) is fully attracted, wherein it was held that, Insurance Company being in a dominant position, often acts in an unreasonable manner and after having accepted the value of a particular insured goods, disowns that very figure on one pretext or the other, when they are called upon to pay compensation.  This ‘take it or leave it’, attitude is clearly unwarranted not only as being bad in law, but ethically indefensible.  It is generally seen that the insurance companies are only interested in earning the premiums and find ways and means to decline claims. In similar set of facts the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in case titled as New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Smt.UshaYadav& Others 2008(3) RCR (Civil) Page 111 went on to hold as under:-

“It seams that the insurance companies are only interested in earning the premiums and find ways and means to decline claims. All conditions which generally are hidden, need to be simplified so that these are easily understood by a person at the time of buying any policy.        The Insurance Companies in such cases rely upon clauses of the agreement, which a person is generally made to sign on dotted lines at the time of obtaining policy. Insurance Company also directed to pay costs of Rs.5000/- for luxury litigation, being rich.

6        Perusal of Insurance policy Ex. OP5 shows that the Insured Declared Value (IDV) as Rs. 16,00,000/- and the complainant has spent an amount of Rs. 6,57,909/- as per Ex. C-8 and C-9 on the repair of vehicle and the said amount is covered under the policy in question.  Moreover, the Globe Auto from where the complainant has repaired his vehicle is an authorized service center of Ashok Layland. As such, whatever will issued by the service centered deem to be genuine.

7        In light of the above discussion, the complaint succeeds as discussed above and is allowed with costs in favour of the complainant and against the Opposite Party. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 6,57,909/- for repair of the vehicle to the complainant. The complainant has been harassed by the opposite party for a long time, therefore, the complainant is also entitled to Rs. 25,000/-as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony. The complainant is also awarded Rs. 11,000/- as costs of litigation from the Opposite Party. Opposite Party is directed to pay the awarded amount to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order failing which the complainant is entitled to interest @ 9% per annum, on the awarded amount, from the date of complaint till its realization. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Commission and due to COVID-19.  Copies of the order be furnished to the parties as per rules. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.

Announced in Open Commission.

15.06.2023