BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, VIJAYAPUR

DATE OF FILING 22^nd  DAY OF JUNE 2016

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO:59/2016

DATED THIS THE 31^ST   DAY OF JANUARY, 2018

01) Sri S.H. Hosalli                            -             President.  

                  B.Com.LLB. (Spl),

02) Smt.G.S. Kalyani                         -        Lady Member.

                 B.Com.LLB. (Spl),

- V/S -

O R D E R

Speaking through Smt. G.S. Kalyani, Lady Member.

This is a Complaint filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein after referred to as the Act) against the Opposite Parties (in short the “Ops”) directing the Op to pay the insurance claim amount Rs.6,46,051/- plus 18% interest from the date of accident, Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service and Rs.11,00,000/-towards compensation for mental agony and physical hardship and any other reliefs as the forum deems fit under the circumstance of the case. 

2)       The brief facts of the case are that:-

          It is the case of the complainant that, complainant has purchased the heavy goods vehicle TATA-LPK2518/TIPPER and its engine No.419767, Chassis No.A00204.  Complainant insured his vehicle with the Ops, Insurance Company for the period from 12.20 Hrs on 04/03/2015 to the midnight of 03/03/2016.  On 18/03/2015 the RTO Pimpri Chinchawad, Pune of Maharastra State issued Temporary Registration certificate it was valid up to 07/04/2015.  Thereafter, complied for permanent permit, the RTO Jamakhandi on 18/03/2015,  issued permanent passing permit. Therefore, the said vehicle met with an accident on 16/03/2015 resulting in damage.  The accident was reported to the police as well as insurance Company.

3)       The Complainant contended that he had got repaired his vehicle through S.C.Motors authorized dealers from Belagavi the total expenses incurred by the complainant is to the tune of Rs.5,97,651/- plus Rs.33,400/- for the replacing of tyres and tubes Plus Rs.15,000/- for towing bill in all complainant paid Rs.6,46,051/- for that complainant filed claim before Ops Company under the policy No.P0015200006/4103/106908 for the reimbursement of expenses incurred by the complainant.  

4)       The insurance company however repudiated the claim under letter dtd:28/09/2015 on the ground that at the time of accident vehicle was not holding the valid permit but as per the claim from the intimation date of loss is 16/03/2015 permit was applied after the date of loss i.e. 18/03/2015 and complainant plying the vehicle without valid permit it is violation of M.V.Act and also policy terms and conditions.

5)       Further, complainant contended that despite of several requests to Ops, Ops did not turn to resolve the grievances caused to complainant, complainant suffered heavy loss due to the deficiency of service by the Op Company.  Hence, complainant issued legal notice through counsel on 27/10/2015 and 27/11/2015 to Op-1 & 2 stating that there are no discrepancies on complainant part since from the date of delivery of vehicle insurance was valid and temporary permit was issued by the RTO Pimpri – Chinchwad, Pune which was valid up to 07/04/2015 and said vehicle hold the permanent permit from 12/03/2015 to 11/03/2017.  Therefore the observations made by the Ops Company is prejudicial and to avoid the claim Ops repudiated the genuine claim of the complainant.  Hence, complainant filed this complaint for necessary reliefs.

6)       After receipt of notice Op-1 & 2 appeared through counsel and resisted the case by filing written version in their written version they contended as under:-

          The complaint is vexatious and frivolous, so also it is contrary to law and facts of the case.  Therefore prays for dismiss the complaint.

7)       Ops admits that they issued policy No:P0015200006/4103/106908 covering the vehicle Tipper bearing its engine No.419767 and Chassis No.A00204 for the period from 12:20 hours  of 04/03/2015 to midnight of 03/03/2016.  The policy of insurance has been issued subject to the terms and conditions and the exceptions enumerated in the policy of insurance.  The date of incident is on 16/03/2015.

18)     Op submits that, the complainant has sent intimation letter informing the incident taken place on 16/03/2015.  As per condition No.1 of insurance policy reads as follows.

          “As per condition No.1 of the Policy of Insurance issued infavour of the complaint the Complainant was required to inform the Opposite Party immediately after the occurrence of the accident.  But, the complainant has failed and neglected to inform the Opposite Party regarding the accident immediately.”

19)     Op further submits that complainant without intimating has got repaired his vehicle and spend Rs.6,46,051/- towards total expenses  complainant put strict proof of the same.

20)     After intimation Op Company appointed surveyor loss assessor by name Sri. S.V.Pattanashetti, said surveyor carried out the survey and submitted the report at Ref. No.SVP/F/6081/2015 dated:10/07/2015.

21)     Op submits that he has sent the letter to complainant on 14/09/2015 and 28/09/2015 and 17/11/2015.  As per the last letter ldtd:17/11/2015 the vehicle was plied without permit and plying the vehicle  without permit is not only violation of terms and conditions of policy of insurance.  Therefore, there is violation of Sec.66 Motor Vehicle Act 1988.  The permit of vehicle was taken from 26/03/2015, but the date of loss is 16/03/2015.  Hence, Op issued repudiation letter mentioning in detail all the reasons for repudiation of claim knowing fact complainant falsely filed this case with a view to take under advantages of  coverage of policy of insurance.  Therefore, there is no deficiency of service by this Op towards complainant.  Hence, Ops prayed for dismissal of complaint with exemplary cost of Rs.10,000/-.   

22)     Complainant filed complainant affidavit, in support of his case.  Complainant filed in all 14 documents same are marked as Ex.C-1 to C-14 respectively.  On the contrary Ops filed his affidavit in lieu of evidence and produced 16 documents same are marked as Ex.Op-1 to Op-16 respectively.  Both counsel, filed written arguments.  Heard the arguments and perused the records the following points does arise for our consideration in deciding the case is as under:-

1)   Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for?

 2) What order?

23)     Answer to the above points.

1)   In negative.

           2) As per Final order.

REASONS

24)    Point No.1:- it is undisputed fact by both the parts that, complainant is the owner of vehicle TATA LPK2518/TIPPER its engine No.419767, chassis No.A00204, the said vehicle was insured in Ops company under policy No.P0015200006/4103/106908 for the period from 12:20 hours of 04/03/2015 to midnight of 03/03/2016 and said policy was issued subject to the terms and conditions and exceptions enumerated in the policy of insurance.

25)     It is also admitted fact that the said vehicle unfortunately met with an accident on 16/03/2015, resulting in damage, further it is admitted fact that after the accident complainant intimated to Police as well as insurance company.  It is also not in dispute that complainant preferred insurance claim to the tune of Rs.6,46,051/- as per repair cost.  It is also admitted fact that the insurance company repudiated the claim on the ground that the vehicle in volued in the accident has not valid permit on the date of accident it is violation of terms and conditions and exceptions of insurance policy and is violation of Sec.66 of M.V. Act 1988.

26)     The only question remains to decide in this case is that whether the complainant proved that his vehicle was valid permit as on the date of accident?  In this regard, we go through averment and as well as written argument of complainant.  Complainant submits that complainant has obtained the temporary registration certificate issued by the RTO Pimpri –Chinchawad, Pune Maharastra State under the Temporary registration certificate No.MH-14-TRU-472 and it was valid up to 07/04/2015.  Thereafter, so as to regularize the said permit in permanent nature, the complainant has filed Form No.KMU-45 where under the RTO Jamakhandi has issued the registration certificate on 18/03/2015.  So the temporary passing permit issued by Chinchawad RTO has stood amalgamated with the seized by the RTO, Jamakhandi while issuing permanent registration certificate to the complainant which means that the permit issued by the RTO Chinchawad is in continuation of his permanent permit issued by the RTO, Jamakhandi and there is no break of permit issued by the RTO Jamakhandi, the said vehicle is met with an accident on 16/03/2015.

27)     On the contrary Op submits that permit for the vehicle was taken from 26/03/2015.  But the date of los is on 16/03/2015 and FIR date is on 18/03/2015.  Therefore, using the vehicle on the public road without any valid permit is not only offence.  But also a fundamental breach of terms and conditions of policy of insurance.

28)     Complainant produced the document at Ex.C-3, C-4 & C-5 it clearly shows that as on the date of accident the vehicle was not valid permit and also it is violation of terms and conditions and exceptions of insurance policy to prove this fact Ops produced the policy i.e. Ex. Op-1, wherein, it is specifically mentioned in heading named as “Limitations as to Use”:-

29)     Op also filed Xerox copy of the M.V.Act Sec.66 which clearly shows that without valid permit the complainant vehicle plied and met with an accident, under such circumstance the Op Company is not liable to reimburse the loss caused to the demanded vehicle.

30)     Moreover, we go through the surveyor report submitted by Op at Ex.Op-13.  Wherein the surveyor opined that the date of accident is 16/03/2015 and permit validity as per permit No.KA-48-GV/347/2014-15 is 26/03/2015 to 25/03/2020.  As on the date of accident it appears the vehicle was running without permit, validity of permit starts after the date of accident and submits that admission of said claim is left with the description of the insurer, we go through the aforesaid document at Ex.Op-13 it is clear clyster that the vehicle was plied without permit as on the date of accident.  Hence, we hold that complainant is not entitled to get reliefs as prayed in the complaint without cogent evidence to show that his vehicle hold permit as on the date of accident.  So, we answer to the point No.1 as negative.

31)    Point No.2:- In view of the discussion at Point No.1 we proceed to pass the following order.

O R D E R

1)   The complaint of the complainant is dismissed. No order as to cost. 

2)   Free copy of this order shall be sent to the parties.

 (This order is dictated to the Stenographer, directly on computer transcript edited, corrected and then pronounced in the open forum on this 31^st day of JANUARY 2018).