Punjab

Faridkot

CC/15/98

M/S Jagdambe Marbles - Complainant(s)

Versus

O.I.C - Opp.Party(s)

Kuldeep Mittal

21 Dec 2015

ORDER

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No. :      98

Date of Institution:  7.08.2015

Date of Decision :   21.12.2015

 

M/s Jagdambe Marbles, Bathinda Road, Jaitu, through its Prop. Mukesh Kumar s/o Devi Dayal.                                     ...Complainant

Versus

1. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd, through its registered office Oriental House, A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi-110002.

2. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd, Branch office Baja Road, Jaitu, Tehsil Jaitu, District Faridkot.

   .....Opposite Parties (Ops)

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum: Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

               Smt Parampal Kaur, Member,

               Sh P Singla, Member.

 

Present: Sh Kuldeep Mittal, Ld Counsel for complainant,

              Sh Deep Chand Goyal, Ld Counsel for OPs.

 

(Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                                         Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OPs seeking directions to OPs to make payment of insurance claim worth Rs.29,000/-with interest and for further directing OPs to pay Rs 50,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service, harassment, inconvenience, mental agony and Rs 11,000/-as litigation expenses.

2                                    Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant purchased one Mahindra Genio SC bearing registration no. PB-04S-1336 for his own use and occupation and got insured the same with OPs. Unfortunately, on 19.12.2014 at about 7.30 pm, his said vehicle met with an accident with a Canter, which was loaded with vegetables and was damaged. Due intimation regarding accident was given to OPs, who appointed Surveyor to assess the loss. Loss to the vehicle was assessed to the tune of Rs 29,000/-, but on 28.03.2015, claim of complainant was rejected on false and frivolous ground that insured vehicle does not have Fitness Certificate, which is quite illegal. It is submitted that as per Central Motor Vehicle Rules, the new vehicle does not need the Fitness Certificate for two years from the date of purchase and said vehicle of complainant was purchased on 19.06.2014 and when it was got insured, it was fit and Fitness Certificate was duly issued. It is further submitted that vehicle of complainant was passed by Motor Vehicle Inspector by getting the penalty deposited from complainant and vehicle is passed uptill 12.04.2016 and thus, vehicle of complainant was duly fit before accident. Moreover, there is no term and condition regarding requirement of fitness certificate of the vehicle. Complainant has made many requests to OPs but all in vain and now, Ops have flatly refused to make payment of genuine claim of complainant, which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of Ops and it has caused harassment and mental agony to complainant for which he has prayed for directions to Ops to pay Rs 50,000/-as compensation and Rs 11,000/- for cost of litigation besides the main relief. Hence, the present complaint.

3                              The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 12.08.2015, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

4                                    On receipt of the notice, the opposite party filed written statement wherein it is asserted that vehicle of complainant is a goods vehicle and is being used for transport purpose and is not meant for personal use. It is averred that on reporting the matter regarding accident to OPs, they appointed a Surveyor, who assessed to the tune of Rs 15,149/- and not of Rs 32,000/-. It is further averred that claim of complainant was repudiated for not having fitness certificate and it was not valid at the time of accident, which was mandatory. It is denied that new vehicle does not need fitness certificate for two years from the date of purchase. It is also denied if complainant got the vehicle passed from Motor Vehicle Inspector by paying the penalty and said vehicle was passed upto 12.04.2016, but in fact, vehicle of complainant was not having fitness certificate at the time of accident. It is further averred that there is no deficiency in service and all the other allegations alongwith allegation regarding relief sought too are refuted with a prayer to dismiss the complaint with costs.

5                                               Parties were given proper opportunities to prove their respective case. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, and documents Ex C-2 to C-5 and then, closed his evidence.

6                                   In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the opposite party 1 tendered in evidence, affidavit of Sh S K Sharma, Div. Manager as Ex OP-1 and documents Ex OP-2 and 3 and then, closed the evidence.

7                     The ld Counsel for complainant argued that the complainant is owner of Mahindra Genio SC bearing registration no. PB-04S-1336. This vehicle of complainant was insured with OPs. Copy of insurance cover is Ex C-3 and copy of RC is Ex C-2. Insurance was valid from 25.07.2014 to 24.07.2015. The vehicle of complainant met with an accident on 19.12.2014 and got damaged in that accident. The complainant duly reported the matter to the OPs, who appointed Surveyor to assess the loss. The Surveyor assessed the loss to the tune of Rs 29,000/-to the vehicle but OPs did not pay the insurance claim to complainant, rather they sent letter dt 28.03.2015 to them informing that their claim is rejected. They repudiated the claim of complainant on false and frivolous ground against the law and facts. OPs repudiated the claim on the ground that vehicle in question had no fitness certificate on the date of accident i.e 19.12.2014, which is altogether against law and facts. At the time of accidence, the vehicle was duly fit and fitness certificate was duly issued as per Central Motor Vehicle Rule. As per Rule No. 62, a new vehicle does not need the fitness certificate for the first two years from the date of its purchase. The complainant purchased this vehicle on 19.06.2014 so as per Motor Vehicle Rules, this vehicle does not require any fresh fitness certificate till 19.06.2015 i.e for two years from the date of its purchase and vehicle met with an accident on 19.12.2014 i.e before the expiry of two years. The copy of Motor Vehicle Rule is Ex C-5. So, at the time of accident, the vehicle was fit and road worthy and by any stretch of imagination it cannot be held  that vehicle was not fit at the time of accident. Moreover, there are no terms and conditions in the Policy, which require fitness certificate. The complainant made many requests to Ops to make payment of insurance claim, but all in vain. All these acts of OPs amount to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on their part. He has prayed for direction to OPs to pay insurance claim of complainant alongwith interest and compensation.

8                                        To controvert the arguments of ld counsel for complainant, ld counsel for OPs argued that vehicle of the complainant was insured with them but he argued that the said vehicle is a goods vehicle and it is used for transport of goods and not meant for personal use. They admitted that vehicle of complainant met with an accident during the insurance period and complainant reported the matter to OPs and they duly appointed a Surveyor to assess the loss, but Surveyor did not assess the loss to the tune of Rs 29,000/- as demanded by complainant, rather he assessed the loss to the tune of Rs 15,149/- vide Survey Report. Copy of the same is Ex Op-3. The OPs repudiated the claim of complainant as vehicle was not having fitness certificate and was not road worthy at the time of accident as he did not possess the valid fitness certificate which is mandatory. The complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the Policy and therefore, his claim was rightly repudiated by OPs on 28.03.2015 and it was duly informed to complainant vide a letter, copy of same is Ex Op-2. It is wrong that claim was repudiated on false and frivolous grounds. It is also wrong that as per Motor Vehicle Rules, a new vehicle does not require  fitness certificate for the first two years from the date of its purchase. As per terms and conditions of the Policy, the vehicle is required to have fitness certificate and the vehicle in question does not have valid fitness certificate at the time of accident and thus, the claim of vehicle of complainant was rightly repudiated. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Present complaint may be dismissed with costs.

9                                           We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have very carefully gone through the affidavits and documents on the file.

10                            The case of complainant is that his vehicle was insured with OPs, which met with an accident on  19.12.2014 and got damaged. He lodged claim with OPs but they wrongly repudiated his claim on the ground that vehicle had no valid fitness certificate at the time of accident and it is altogether illegal. The OPs admitted that vehicle in dispute was insured with them, which met with an accident during the insurance period, but they repudiated the claim of complainant as it does have fitness certificate at the time of accident.

11                                    The ld counsel for complainant produced copy of Central Motor Vehicle Rules and vide Rule No. 62 the fitness certificate of a new transport vehicle is valid for two years from the date of its purchase and as per complainant, he purchased the said vehicle on 19.06.2013. So, as per Motor Vehicle Rules his vehicle does not require fitness certificate till 18.06.2015 i.e for the first two years from the date of its purchase and when it met with an accident on 19.12.2014 i.e within two years so, this vehicle does not require fitness certificate and therefore, in these circumstances, we are fully convinced with the arguments of counsel for complainant. He has succeeded in proving his case. The OPs have wrongly and illegally repudiated the claim of complainant which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on their part. Therefore, present complaint is hereby allowed. The Ops are directed to pay Rs 15,149/- as claim for the loss of vehicle to complainant as assessed by the Surveyor vide its report Ex Op-3 with interest at the rate of 9 % per anum from 28.03.2015 when OPs repudiated the claim of complainant till realization. OPs are also directed to pay Rs 3000/-to complainant as litigation expenses. Copy of order be given to parties free of cost under rules. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 21.12.2015                 

                          Member            Member                  President

      (P Singla)        (Parampal Kaur)     (Ajit Aggarwal)