DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.04 of 03-01-2011 Decided on 14-06-2011
Gamdoor Singh s/o Sh.Surjit Singh, aged about 55 years, R/o House No.16401-C, Street No.19, Baba Farid Nagar, Bathinda. .......Complainant Versus
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office, The Mall, Bathinda, through its Senior Divisional Manager. Canara Bank, Civil Line Branch, Bathinda, through its Branch Manager.
......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President. Sh.Amarjeet Paul, Member. Present:- For the Complainant: Sh.Lachhman Kumar, counsel for the complainant. For Opposite parties: Sh.Sunder Gupta, counsel for opposite party No.1. Sh.Sham Singh Jaura, counsel for opposite party No.2.
ORDER
Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President:-
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended up-to-date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is owner of one Chervolet Tavera vehicle bearing registration No.PB-0T/5564 which he has purchased with the financial assistance of the opposite party No.2 and got it insured with the opposite party No.1 vide cover note No.378938 w.e.f. 25.02.2010 to 24.02.2011 for a sum of Rs.5,60,000/- against the premium payment of Rs.15,355/-. The complainant was not supplied any terms and conditions by the opposite party No.1. The complainant has purchased the aforesaid vehicle from its earlier owner alongwith permit to earn his livelihood. On 27.10.2010, the vehicle of the complainant met with an accident when he alongwith other persons had started journey from village Bhagi Wander to return his house at Bathinda, a buffalo appeared on the road in front of the vehicle of the complainant. An intimation regarding the said accident was given to the opposite party No.1 with a request to depute some surveyors to assess the loss to the insured vehicle who appointed the surveyor for spot survey. The Surveyor had obtained the signatures of the complainant on various blank papers and blank printed Forms at the instance of the opposite party No.1 and assured the complainant that his loss will be reimbursed by the opposite party No.1 and gave his consent to get the said insured vehicle repaired. The aforesaid documents got signed by the surveyor of the opposite party No.1 are in power and possession of the opposite party No.1. The complainant got his insured vehicle repaired and spent Rs.49,034/- on the repair of the insured vehicle and the opposite party No.1 also deputed Surveyor and Loss Assessors for final survey, who conducted the final surveyor and he also obtained the signatures of the complainant on blank printed Forms and took the photographs of the vehicle and all the original bills and other relevant documents/claim papers from the complainant for forwarding the same to the opposite party No.1. Thereafter, the complainant fulfilled all the formalities regarding the lodging of the claim but the opposite party No.1 vide letter dated 06.12.2010 has repudiated the claim of the complainant. Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint. 2. The opposite party No.1 filed its separate written statement and pleaded that the insured was not having a route permit in his name and the aforesaid vehicle was being plied by the insured/complainant without any route permit in insured's name, as such, the complainant/insured has violated the terms and conditions of the Policy as well as provisions of Motor Vehicles Act. The claim of the complainant has rightly been repudiated vide letter dated 06.12.2010. The opposite party No.1 has further pleaded that after receipt of intimation regarding the alleged accident, Mr. Dinesh K. Goyal, Surveyor and Loss Assessor was deputed to assess the loss to the insured vehicle who vide his report dated 22.11.2010 has assessed the net loss to the insured vehicle to the tune of Rs.26,864/- and has assessed the salvage value of the damaged parts of Rs.670/-. The liability of the Insurance Company is limited to Rs.26,194/- as per survey report of Sh. Dinesh K. Goyal, regarding which the insured/complainant has also given consent of his own free will without any coercion on 30.10.2010. The opposite party No.1 has further pleaded that as per record, the complainant purchased the insured vehicle from its earlier owner M/s Fauji Taxi Service. The insured/complainant was duty bound to get the permit of the vehicle transfer in his name at the time of purchase of the aforesaid vehicle. The vehicle was insured for carrying passengers for commercial purposes and for plying a vehicle on road; route permit of the commercial vehicle in the name of the owner of the vehicle is a must as per section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act and the said vehicle was being plied without any route permit in the name of the insured/complainant. 3. The opposite party No.2 has filed its separate written statement and pleaded that the vehicle is hypothecated with the opposite party No.2 who has all rights of ownership on the same. All the amount of claim, to be allowed by this Forum, should be ordered to be paid and deposited in the loan account of the complainant because the loan amount is still outstanding against the complainant. 4. Parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings. 5. Arguments heard. Record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused. 6. The vehicle of the complainant Chervolet Tavera bearing registration No.PB-0T/5564 is insured for Rs.5,60,000/- with the opposite party No.1 vide cover note No.378938 valid from 25.02.2010 to 24.02.2011. The aforesaid vehicle of the complainant met with an accident on 27.10.2010, when a buffalo appeared on the road in front of the vehicle of the complainant. An intimation regarding the aforesaid accident was given to the opposite party No.1 with a request to depute some surveyor to assess the loss to the insured vehicle. The surveyor was appointed who conducted the spot survey and assessed the loss. The Surveyor had obtained the signatures of the complainant on various blank papers and blank printed Forms at the instance of the opposite party No.1 with assurance that his loss will be reimbursed and give his consent to get the said insured vehicle repaired. The complainant got the vehicle in question repaired and an amount of Rs.49,034/- was spent by the complainant on the repair of the said vehicle. Thereafter, the opposite party No.1 deputed the surveyor/Loss Assessor who conducted the final survey, obtained the signatures of the complainant on blank printed Forms, took the photographs of the vehicle, all the original bills and other relevant documents from the complainant for forwarding the claim to the opposite party No.1. On 06.12.2010, the opposite party No.1 has repudiated the claim of the complainant with following remarks:- “With reference to your above said claim, the permit of the vehicle is not in your name and we are not in a position to settle the claim. Hence your claim is closed as No Claim”. The ground for repudiation in the aforesaid letter was that the complainant was not holding permit at the time of accident. The opposite party No.1 has taken legal objection that the aforesaid vehicle was insured for commercial purpose for carrying passengers but the insured was not having a route permit in his name, as such, the complainant/insured has violated the terms and conditions of the Policy and provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act. In this way, the claim of the complainant/insured has been repudiated vide letter dated 06.12.2010 after thorough investigation. After receipt of intimation of the alleged accident, Mr. Dinesh K. Goyal, Surveyor and Loss Assessor was deputed to assess the loss to the insured vehicle who submitted his report dated 22.11.2010, and assessed the net loss to the insured vehicle to the tune of Rs.26,864/- and has assessed the salvage value of the damaged parts to the tune of Rs.670/-. The opposite party No.1 has also taken legal objection that the complainant is not consumer as the vehicle was being plied for commercial purposes and has been insured for carrying on commercial activities i.e. for carrying passengers on hire and reward. 7. The complainant has purchased the insured vehicle from its earlier owner M/s Fauzi Taxi Service. The Insured/complainant was duty bound to get the permit of the vehicle transferred in his name at the time of purchase of the aforesaid vehicle and before getting the aforesaid vehicle insured from the opposite party No.1. The opposite party No.1 has denied the fact that the complainant has plied the vehicle for earning his livelihood rather he has been plying the vehicle for commercial purposes. The opposite parties have also denied that they have obtained the signatures of the complainant on blank papers. The complainant has only incurred Rs.26,864/- for getting his vehicle repaired as per final survey report of Sh. Dinesh K. Goyal. A repudiation letter dated 06.12.2010 Ex.C-1 is reproduced as under:- “With reference to your above said claim, the permit of the vehicle is not in your name and we are not in a position to settle the claim. Hence your claim is closed as No Claim.” 8. The complainant has purchased the said vehicle from its previous owner and got transferred in his name and has also purchased insurance from the opposite party No.1. His vehicle met with an accident when a buffalo appeared on the road in front of the vehicle of the complainant. The spot surveyor was appointed and on the asking of the spot surveyor, the complainant got his vehicle repaired after paying Rs.49,034/-. Thereafter, a final surveyor was deputed, he repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that there is no permit of the vehicle in the name of the complainant. But a perusal of record shows that there is a valid route permit in the name of the previous owner and thereafter, the same has been transferred in the name of the complainant. Moreover, the insured vehicle having route permit at the time of accident. With regard to the amount assessed by the surveyor, the complainant has deposed in his affidavit Ex.C-11 that the surveyor of the opposite party No.1 has assessed the loss at lower side without assigning any reason as against the actual loss of Rs.49,034/-. The alleged consent, if any, is misuse of blank papers got signed from the complainant by the surveyor of the opposite party/insurance company and the alleged consent Form is not binding upon him. 9. Sh. P.K. Jain, Senior Divisional Manager, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., has deposed in his affidavit Ex.R-1 that the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the Policy as the vehicle was being plied without any route permit, if this Forum comes to the conclusion that the opposite party No.1 is liable to pay any compensation to the complainant, then liability of Insurance Company is limited to Rs.26,194/- as per survey report of Sh. Dinesh K. Goyal. Sh. P.K. Jain, has deposed in para No.3 of his affidavit that the insured was plying the vehicle without any route permit whereas he is required to have the route permit u/s 66 of the M.V. Act and as such, the the complainant/insured has violated the terms and conditions of the Policy. 10. The accident has occurred due to sudden coming of the buffalo in front of the vehicle on the road, not caused due to not holding route permit. Moreover, a perusal of terms and conditions placed on file Ex.R-8 shows that there are not supplied to the complainant as this document is not signed by any of the parties. At the time of purchase of the said vehicle, route permit was in the name of the original owner and it was valid from 04.06.2009 to 03.06.2011 Ex.C-10 from whom, he has purchased the said vehicle. The route permit was got transferred in his name by the complainant vide Ex.C-2 which is valid from 10.12.2010 to 09.12.2015. An accident took place on 27.10.2010. There was a route permit at the time of accident and it needs time to get it transferred. The same was transferred on 10.12.2010 by the complainant. The legal objections of the opposite parties that he is plying the said vehicle for commercial purposes, the complainant has specifically pleaded in his complaint that he is plying the said vehicle for earning his livelihood and for his family members. The opposite parties have produced nothing on file that he has been earning huge profits and has employed more than one person. Therefore, the objection of the opposite parties is not tenable. As per Motor Vehicle Act, Section 66 which is reproduced as under:- “Necessity for permits:- (1) 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 Regional or State Transport Authority or any prescribed authority authorizing him the use of the vehicle in that place in the manner in which the vehicle is being used: Provided that a stage carriage permit shall, subject to any conditions that may be specified in the permit, authorize the use of the vehicle as a contract carriage: Provided further 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: Provided also that a goods carriage permit shall, subject to any conditions that may be specified in the permit, authorize the holder to use the vehicle for the carriage of goods for or in connection with a trade or business carried on by him.” 11. Moreover, at the time of issuance of the policy, the Insurance company never bothered to verify if the complainant was holding route permit or not. At the time of paying the claim, the opposite parties cannot go into such technicalities just to repudiate the claim of the complainant. The repudiation letter dated 06.12.2010 has itself violated the basic nature of getting insurance. If the route permit was not valid on the date of accident, non-standard claim would have been paid to the complainant. In such circumstances, the complainant was entitled to get 75% of the claim value on non-standard basis but the opposite parties have totally repudiated the claim of the complainant. Thereafter, they have deposed in their affidavit that their surveyor has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.26,864/- and sent a letter with regard to this amount and got signed consent letter dated 30.10.2010 vide Ex.R-5 from the complainant. 12. Therefore, in view of what has been discussed above, this Forum concludes that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Therefore, this complaint is accepted with Rs.3,000/- as cost and compensation against the opposite party No.1 and dismissed qua the opposite party No.2 and the opposite party No.1 is directed to pay Rs.26,864/- as per surveyor report Ex.R-3. Compliance of this order be done within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In case of non-compliance, interest @ 9% p.a. will yield on Rs.26,864/- till realization. 13. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned for record. '
Pronounced 14.06.2011 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni) President
(Amarjeet Paul) Member |
