Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/14/737

M/s Eurodec Paints - Complainant(s)

Versus

Reliance General Ins.Co.Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sanjeev Sood

30 Jun 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

                                                                 C.C.No: 737 of 29.10.2014

                                                                     Date of Decision: 30.06.2015

M/s Eurodec Paints village Bija, Tehsil Khanna, District Ludhiana Head Office Gill Road, Ludhiana through Mr.Naveen Batish H.R. of firm.

                                                                                          … Complainant

                                      Versus

1. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Regd. Office: Reliance Centre, 19, m Walchand Hirachand Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai 400001 through its Director/MD/Authorized Signatory.

2.Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, 60 Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase 3, New Delhi-110020 through its Director/MD/Authorized Signatory.

3. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office 7^th floor, Surya Tower, 108, The Mall, Ludhiana-141008, through its Authorized signatory/Manager.

                                                                             … Opposite parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE

CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986. 

Quorum:     Sh.R.L.Ahuja, President

                   Sh.Sat Paul Garg, Member

 

Present:       Proxy counsel for complainant.

                   Sh. G.S.Kalyan, Advocate for OPs.

                                           ORDER

(R.L.AHUJA, PRESIDENT)

 

1.                Present complaint under section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after in short to be referred as ‘Act’) has been filed by M/s Eurodec Paints village Bija, Tehsil Khanna, District Ludhiana Head Office Gill Road, Ludhiana through Mr.Naveen Batish H.R. of firm(herein-after in short to be referred as ‘Complainant’) against Reliance General Insurance Company Limited and others (herein-after in short to be referred as ‘OPs’)- directing them to pay the claim amount of Rs.2,45,680/- with interest @12% p.a. from the date of lodging of claim till its realization alongwith Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses besides Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment and delay in settlement of claim and other benefits to the complainant.

2.                Brief facts of the complaint are that complainant is a partnership firm and is registered owner of vehicle i.e.Tata 407 Model 2012 bearing registration No.PB-10-DS-5026 vide registration date of 3.10.2012. At the time of registration, all the documents alongwith vehicle were properly checked by the Motor Vehicle Authority and this vehicle was duly hypothecated with Sundram Finance Ltd and the same is mentioned on registration certificate. The complainant got the abovesaid vehicle insured with Ops vide insurance policy No.2001722335000082 w.e.f.26.6.2012 to 25.6.2013 and paid the premium of Rs.17,247/-. The complainant purchased the aforesaid vehicle as a source of earning livelihood and not for transportation purpose. At the time of insurance of the said vehicle, all the documents of the vehicle were checked and verified by the officials of OP3 and complainant was assured that in case any damage/loss will occur to the abovesaid vehicle, the company M/s Reliance General Insurance Company Limited will give the claim amount and believing such assurances, the complainant purchased the aforesaid insurance policy. On 28.1.2013, driver of the complainant Jagdeep Singh son of Jagsher singh was going from Ludhiana Office to Bija factory on aforesaid vehicle and at about 11:00 PM, due to heavy fog at G.T.Road, the said vehicle struck into the standing tralla on the road at Kaddo near Doraha on account of which, cabin of the vehicle had totally damaged and one rear tyre was also burst. A DDR No.5 dated 30.1.2013 was registered to this effect. The accident took place within the validity of the insurance policy. After the accident, the said vehicle was got repaired with Dada Motors Pvt. Ltd., and after repair, they issued invoice of repair vide bill No.131400340 dated 23.4.2013 of Rs.2,45,686/- to the complainant and the complainant made this amount through cheque No.01262 dated 4.4.2013 drawn on BOI for Rs.1 lakh and cheque No.016328 dated 27.4.2013 drawn on BOI for Rs.1,43,680/-. Thereafter, the claim was lodged with the Ops vide insurance claim No.2131012131 alongwith the documents as demanded by the Ops. However, after delaying the matter for the last more than 7 months, ultimately, repudiated the claim on flimsy grounds that Permit was not valid. Such act and conduct of Ops is claimed to be deficiency in service on their part by the complainant. Hence, this complaint.

3.                Upon notice of the complaint, Ops were duly served and appeared through their counsel and filed their written reply, wherein, it has been submitted in the preliminary objections that the present petition is not maintainable and the same is without any cause of action as the complainant has not come to the Court with clean hands and has concealed the material facts from the Hon’ble Court. It is submitted that on receipt of the claim intimation, the answering OP1 entertained, registered and processed the claim. The surveyor was deputed and loss was assessed. The said surveyor submitted his report to the answering Ops. On receipt of the survey report and documents, the officials of the company applied their mind and repudiated the claim of the complainant vide registered letter dated 8.8.2013 as vehicle No.PB-10-DS-5026 was not having valid permit at the time of accident. The present complaint is not filed by the proper person and the complainant is entitled to any relief as the driver of the vehicle himself is negligent as law. As such, complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed. Reply on facts, it is submitted that the complainant is using the insured vehicle for commercial purpose. So, the complaint does not fall within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. The fact regarding issuance of policy subject to terms and conditions is admitted. Otherwise, similar pleas were taken as taken in the preliminary objections and at the end, denying any deficiency in service and all other allegations of the complaint being wrong and incorrect, answering OPs prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

4.                Both the parties adduced their evidence in the shape of affidavits and documents.

5.                We have heard the learned proxy counsel for the complainant and learned counsel for the Ops.

6.                Learned proxy counsel for the complainant has contended that it is proved fact on record that the complainant firm is the registered owner of vehicle in question i.e. Tata 407 Model 2012 bearing registration No.PB-10-DS-5026 which was insured with the Ops for the period w.e.f.26.6.2012 to 25.6.2013 vide policy No.2001722335000082 on payment of premium of Rs.17,247/-. It has further been contended that it is proved fact on record that the aforesaid vehicle met with an accident on 28.01.2013 due to heavy fog at G.T.Road while strucking against standing tralla on the road at Kaddo near Doraha. DDR NO.5 dated 30.1.2013 was registered to this effect and the vehicle was got repaired from Dada Motors Pvt. Ltd. after spending amount of Rs.2,45,686/- vide invoice NO.131400340 dated 23.4.2012 and thereafter, the claim was lodged with the Ops which was assessed by the surveyor duly appointed by the Ops but the same has not been paid on the technical ground that the vehicle in question was not covered with the valid permit on the date of accident. Though, there was no necessity of permit as vehicle in question was meant for their own use and was not plying by the complainant for hire and reward. Further, learned proxy counsel for the complainant has relied upon judgment titled as Future General Insurance Co.Ltd. vs. Smt. Surjo Devi and others-2013(2)RCR-(Civil)-564(Punjab & Haryana High Court).

7.                On the other hand, learned counsel for the Ops has contended that it is proved fact on record that accident/loss of the vehicle in question took place on 28.01.2013 and the route permit was issued to the vehicle of the complainant on 8.3.2013 by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Patiala. As per Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which provides for the necessity of the route permit that no owner of motor vehicle shall use or permit the use of the vehicle as a transport vehicle in any public place whether or not such vehicle is actually carrying any passengers or goods save in accordance with the conditions of a permit granted or countersigned by a National or State Transport Authority or any prescribed authority authorizing for the use of the vehicle in that placer in manner in which, the vehicle is being used. Further, it has been provided that a stage carriage permit shall, subject to any conditions that may be specified in the permit, authorise the use of the vehicle as a contract carriage. Further, learned counsel for the Ops has relied upon judgment titled as National Insurance Company vs. Challa Bharathamma-CA No.6178 of 2004, decided on 21.09.2004(S.C.).

8.                We have considered the contention of the learned proxy counsel for the complainant and learned counsel for the Ops and have also perused the judgments placed on record during the course of argument and have also perused the documents on record very carefully.

9.                Perusal of the record reveals that it is an undisputed fact between the parties that the complainant firm is the registered owner of vehicle in question i.e. Tata 407 Model 2012 bearing registration No.PB-10-DS-5026 Ex.C1 which was insured with the Ops for the period w.e.f.26.6.2012 to 25.6.2013 vide policy No.2001722335000082 Ex.C4 on payment of premium of Rs.17,247/-. Further, it is a proved fact on record that the aforesaid vehicle of the complainant firm met with an accident on 28.01.2013 due to heavy fog at G.T.Road when the same was struck against the standing tralla on the road at Kaddo near Doraha and DDR NO.5 dated 30.1.2013 Ex.C5 was registered to this effect. Further, it is a proved fact on record that the claim was lodged with the Ops by the complainant which was registered and processed and M/s Bansal & Company was appointed and surveyor and loss assessors by the Ops in order to survey and assess the loss caused to the vehicle in question, who after his thorough survey and inspection of the vehicle in question, submitted his detailed report. However, the claim of the complainant was declined by the Ops vide repudiation letter dated 8.8.2013 Ex.R5 on the ground that on the date of accident, the route permit was not valid.

10.              Perusal of the evidence of the complainant reveals that the complainant has placed on record affidavit of Sh.Naveen Batish, H.R. of complainant company as Ex.CWA, in which, he has deposed interms of the complaint filed by the complainant. Further, the complainant has proved on record the documents Ex.C1 coy of registration certificate of the vehicle in question, Ex.C2 copy of partnership deed, Ex.C3 copy of Authority Letter, Ex.C4 copy of insurance policy qua the vehicle in question, Ex.C5 copy of DDR lodged by the complainant qua the accident of the vehicle in question Ex.C6 copy of repair bill issued by the Dada Motors Pvt. Ltd.,Ex.C7 and Ex.C8 copies of Bank Payment vouchers, vide which, an amount of RS.1 lakh and Rs.1,43,680/- was paid by the complainant to Dada Motors, Pvt. Ltd., Ex.C9 copy of repudiation letter dated 8.8.2013 and Ex.C10 copy of driving license of Sh.Jagdeep Singh.

11.              On the other hand, Ops have placed on record affidavit  documents Ex.RA of Sh.Suryadeep Jhaku, its Manager(Legal), in which, he has reiterated all the contents of the written reply filed by the Ops. Further, Ops have placed on record the documents Ex.R1 copy of Survey details, Ex.R2 copy of survey report dated 2.2.2013 issued by Bansal & Company, Ex.R3 copy of driving license of Sh.Jagdeep singh, Ex.R4 copy of DDR NO.5 dated 30.1.2013 lodged by the complainant qua the accident of the vehicle in question, Ex.R5 copy of repudiation letter, Ex.R6 copy of postal receipt, Ex.R7 to Ex.R13 copies of Excise Invoices, Ex.R14 to Ex.R17 copies of medical slips issued in the name of Sh.Jagdeep Singh, Ex.R18 copy of Good Carriage Permit for Hire and Reward which was issued by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Patiala, Ex.R19 copy of registration certificate of the vehicle in question, Ex.R20 copy of Goods Carriage Permit of Hire or Reward issued by Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Patiala qua the vehicle in question and Ex.R21 copy of the Reliance Commercial Vehicle Package Policy.

12.              Perusal of the document Ex.R19 copy of Certificate of Registration of the vehicle in question bearing registration NO.PB-10-DS-5026 which was issued by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Patiala reveals that the said vehicle was registered on 3.10.2012. The evidence of the complainant reveals that the accident of the vehicle in question took place on 28.1.2013. Further, perusal of the document Ex.R20 i.e. copy of Route Permit reveals that the same was issued on 8.3.2013. Perusal of the evidence of the complainant further reveals that the complainant has not placed on record any route permit or any other documents, from which, it could be presumed that the vehicle was covered with any route permit on the date of accident.

13.              Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which provides for the necessity of the route permit that no owner of a motor vehicle shall use or permit the use of the vehicle as a transport vehicle in any public place whether or not such vehicle is actually carrying any passengers or goods save in accordance with the conditions of a permit granted or countersigned by a National or State Transport Authority or any prescribed authority authorizing for the use of the vehicle in that placer in manner in which, the vehicle is being used. Further, it has been provided that a stage carriage permit shall, subject to any conditions that may be specified in the permit, authorise the use of the vehicle as a contract carriage. Further, it has been provided that a stage carriage permit may, subject to any conditions that may be specified in the permit, authorize the use of the vehicle as a goods carriage either when carrying passengers or not. Further, it has been provided that a goods carriage permit shall, subject to any conditions that may be specified in the permit, authorise the holder to use the vehicle for the carriage of goods for or in connection with a trade or business carried on by him.

14.              Since the complainant was not holding a valid route permit on the date of accident which clearly amounts to violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. As such, we are of the opinion that the Ops had rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant on valid grounds.

15.              In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the complaint of the complaint is devoid of any merit and the same is hereby dismissed. Copy of the order be made available to the parties free of costs. File be completed and consigned to record room.

 

                             (Sat Paul Garg)              (R.L.Ahuja)

                               Member                       President    

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:30.06.2015

Gurpreet Sharma.