Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 19.
Instituted on : 10.01.2017.
Decided on : 04.07.2018.
Jitender s/o Sh. Suresh Kumar R/o 303, VPO Kanheli, Distt. Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
SBI General Insurance Company Ltd., Anand Plaza, 2nd Floor, Near Chhotu Ram Chowk, Rohtak.
……….Opposite party.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.RAJBIR SINGH DAHIYA, PRESIDENT.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Sumit Singh, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Gulshan Chawla, Advocate for opposite party.
ORDER
RAJBIR SINGH DAHIYA, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that complainant is owner of vehicle bearing no.HR-46B-5798 and the alleged vehicle met with an accident on 29.04.2016. The vehicle was totally damaged in the accident and FIR no.87 dated 30.04.2016 was registered. That the vehicle was insured with the opposite party so he filed the claim with the opposite party in time but the opposite party refused to pay the claim on the grounds that the vehicle permit has expired on 21.04.2016 i.e. before the date of loss. That the complainant has permitted for National permit for public carrier on 29.04.2015 and the National permit was valid from 29.04.2015 to 22.04.2018. That the complainant has paid consolidated fee for 1 year and the same was valid upto 21.04.2015. That the national permit was not cancelled by any authority and the respondent wrongly repudiated the claim of the claimant vide letter dated 26.08.2016 and the same is illegal, null and void. Hence this complaint and the complainant has prayed for directing the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.400000/- alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties in their reply has submitted that the vehicle in question being met with an accident on 29.04.2016. That the vehicle was having no national permit(permit to drive in Utter Pradesh) on the date of accident i.e. 29.04.2016 which is violation of M.V.Act and policy conditions. That the surveyor has assessed the loss amounting to Rs.273000/- but the same was not paid for the reason mentioned above. That there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and has closed his evidence. On the other hand ld. counsel for the OP tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, Ex.RW1/B, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R2 and closed his evidence.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. From the facts of the case it is revealed that the vehicle in question was not moving, but it was stationary when it was hit from behind by dumper bearing Registration No.UP77T7890 and by the impact of the accident the vehicle in question also damaged from front when it hit the vehicle parked next. The counsel for the opposite party taken an objection that on the date of accident the national permit Ex.C3 has been expired and the complainant had violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and it is also the violation of the provisions of the M.V.Act 1988 of the rules. The accident of the vehicle in question has not been denied by the insurance company. Survey for the accidental loss has been done by the surveyor of the insurance company vide Ex.R8. However, the claim of the complainant under the policy was repudiated by the insurance company on the ground that the vehicle in question was not having the valid permit on the date of accident.
6. The counsel for the complainant relied upon a case law, reference in this case be made to the decision of Hon’ble National Commission referred in case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Gian Singh reported in 2006CTJ(CP)(NCDRC). In that decision of Hon’ble National Commission it has been held that in a case of violation of conditions of the policy as to the use of the vehicle, the claim ought to be settled on a non standard basis.
7. In paragraph 13 of the judgment in the case of National Insurance Co. Vs. Nitin Khandelwal reported in 2008(7) First appeal No.1169 of 2014 Hon’ble Court held that appellant Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle when the insurer has obtained comprehensive policy for the loss caused to the insurer. The respondent submitted that even assuming that there was a breach of condition of the insurance policy, the appellant insurance company ought to have settled the claim on non standard basis. In the case of Nitin Khandelwal(Supra) Hon’ble State Commission allowed 75% of the claim of the claimant on non standard basis. The said order was upheld by the Hon’ble National Commission. Hon’ble Apex Court refused to interfere with the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission.
8. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as Hon’ble National Commission in the above noted authorities, the claim of the complainant is settled on non-standard basis. As such complaint succeeds and it is directed that opposite party shall pay 75% of the claim amount as assessed by the surveyor i.e. to pay Rs.204750/-(Rupees two lac four thousand seven hundred fifty only) alongwith interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 10.01.2017 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses and compensation to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.
9. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
04.07.2018.
................................................
Rajbir Singh Dahiya, President
..........................................
Ved Pal Hooda, Member.
