BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint no.195/13.
Date of instt.: 16.09.2013.
Date of Decision: 07.09.2015.
Mandeep Kumar Anand son of Sh. Darshan Kumar Anand, resident of V.P.O. Guhla, Tehsil Guhla, Distt. Kaithal.
……….Complainant.
Versus
1. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. through its Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Subhkaran Market, Railway Road, Kurukshetra.
2. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. through its Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., R.O. L.I.C. Building, 2nd Floor, Jagadhari Road, Ambala Cantt.
3. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. through its Branch Manager, Pehowa Chowk, Kaithal.
..……..Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Sh. Jagmal Singh, President.
Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.
Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.
Present : Sh. Satish Singhal, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Sudeep Malik, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
(RAJBIR SINGH, MEMBER).
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he is registered owner of three-wheeler marka GARV SHAKTI bearing registration No.HR65-6348, Engine No.RIG-2983220, Chassis No.MEDAPIMPLB08B1789, which was got insured with the Op No.1 vide policy for the period 29.08.2011 to 28.08.2012 and he paid Rs.4325/- to the OP No.1 and Op No.1 issued a cover note bearing No.134933 in favour of complainant. It is alleged that on 05.08.2012 the complainant met with an accident near Village Guhla, as a result of which, the above-said three-wheeler of the complainant was totally damaged and the complainant himself also suffered multiple injuries on his person. It is further alleged that the complainant incurred more than Rs.1,50,000/- on his treatment and the complainant also spent Rs.42,000/- on the repair of his said three-wheeler which was got repaired from Shiv Auto Repair Centre, Kurukshetra Road, Pipli vide memo dt. 29.08.2012. It is further alleged that the complainant lodged the claim with the Ops and submitted all the necessary documents. It is further alleged that the complainant is having a carriage permit No.245/AR/2012 issued by the Registered Transport Authority and as per route permit, the complainant was running the vehicle/three-wheeler within the route permit area but the Ops without verifying the claim of complainant repudiated the claim of complainant. The said repudiation of claim is wrong and illegal. This way, the Ops are deficient in service. Hence, this complaint is filed.
2. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared before this forum. Ops No.1 and 2 filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum. The true facts are that after receipt of intimation about the alleged loss, M/s. Royal Surveyors was deputed to investigate the matter, who submitted his report on 20.10.2010 and as per his report, there is difference in the name of registered owner as-well-as name of person in whose name route permit to ply the vehicle was issued. As per record, the registered owner of the vehicle is Sh. Mandeep Kumar, whereas route permit No.553/AR/RTA/KKR/2011 submitted by the insured himself is in the name of Sh. Shish Pal i.e. previous owner of the vehice in question. Moreover, the vehicle in question has met with an accident on Guhla Road, Cheeka, whereas route permit was issued by the Regional Transport Authority, Kurukshetra for plying the vehicle within MC area of Kurukshetra plus 5 K.M. outside of M.C.Area, which is clear cut violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops. On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. On 20.07.2015, statement of ld. Counsel for the Ops No.1 and 2 was recorded to the effect that the reply filed on behalf of Ops No.1 and 2 be also read on behalf of Op No.3.
4. In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C12 and closed evidence on 17.09.2014. On the other hand, the Ops tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RA and documents Ex.RB to Ex.RF and closed evidence on 28.10.2014.
5. We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.
6. Ld. Counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant got insured three-wheeler marka GARV SHAKTI bearing registration No.HR65-6348, Engine No.RIG-2983220, Chassis No.MEDAPIMPLB08B1789 with the Op No.1 vide policy for the period 29.08.2011 to 28.08.2012. He argued that on 05.08.2012 the complainant met with an accident near Village Guhla and in the said accident, the above-said three-wheeler of the complainant was totally damaged and the complainant himself also suffered multiple injuries. He further argued that the complainant lodged the claim with the Ops but the Ops repudiated the claim of complainant. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the Ops argued that on the date of alleged accident i.e. 05.08.2012, the complainant was having no route permit. On the alleged date, the route permit issued for the vehicle in question was in the name of one Shish Pal, as is clear from the document Ex.RD and not in the name of complainant. The complainant produced the goods/contract carrier permit bearing No.245/AR/2012, Ex.C8 but the same is valid w.e.f. 06.12.2012 to 09.02.2017. So, on the date of accident i.e. 05.08.2012 the complainant has not valid permit, hence, he is not entitled to any claim.
7. From the facts and circumstances of the case, the evidence available on the file and on consideration of rival contentions of both the parties, we are of the considered opinion that as per goods/contract carriage permit bearing No.245/AR/2012, Ex.C8, the validity of which was w.e.f. 06.12.2012 to 09.02.2017, whereas the accident took place on 05.08.2012 and the complainant was not having any valid route permit on 05.08.2012. So, the complainant is not entitled for any claim. Hence, the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency on the part of Ops.
8. Therefore, as a sequel of above discussion, we find no merit in the complaint and dismiss the same. No order as to costs. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced.
Dt.07.09.2015.
(Jagmal Singh),
President.
(Harisha Mehta), (Rajbir Singh),
Member. Member.
