| ORDER | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA (PUNJAB)
CC No. 477 of 20-09-2012 Decided on : 14-02-2013
Thirath Singh Brar, aged about 48 years, S/o Sh. Bakhshish Singh, R/o V.P.O. Mehma Sarja, Tehsil & Distt. Bathinda. .... Complainant Versus
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office, The Mall, Bathinda, through its Regional Manager ...... Opposite party
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur, Member
For the Complainant : Sh. Charan Pal Singh Brar, counsel for the complainant. Counsel for opposite parties : Sh. J D Nayyar, counsel for opposite party.
O R D E R
VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT
The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (here-in-after referred to as 'Act'). Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that he purchased a new truck-trolla, make Tata, Model LPS-4018 T.C., in the month of March, 2012 for earning his livelihood by way of self employment. The complainant got insured the said vehicle from the opposite party vide policy bearing No. 36060031110100003149 for the period from 21-03-2012 to 20-03-2013. The said vehicle was allotted a registration certificate No. PB-03-A-A-8477 by the DTO office, Bathinda. The complainant applied for goods carriage permit to the Regional Transport Authority, Bathinda, and deposited the tax and permit fee and other expenses in time. The RTA, Bathinda issued permit to the said vehicle which was to be expired on 11-04-2017. The complainant is constructing a house for which he required crusher and accordingly he sent his vehicle through his driver Balwinder Singh to Pathankot. The said driver purchased 400 ft. crusher through Baba Transport Company, Pathankot and left Pathankot at 10.00 p.m. At 2.00 a.m. when the said truck-trolla reached near Jeera Town, some animals came in front of the vehicle from right side of the road. The driver of the said vehicle to save the animals, suddenly applied brakes due to which the truck-trolla over turned in the khud after striking with the trees. The complainant intimated the loss to the opposite party and they deputed the surveyor to assess the loss. The complainant alleged that he requested the officials of the opposite party that the vehicle is totally damaged, but the opposite party pressurized him to get the vehicle repaired and assured him that all the bills would be cleared. The complainant got the said vehicle repaired from five workshops at Bathinda. The engine parts, cabin, chassis were got repaired from the company namely Gobind Motors, Bathinda Road, Rampura Phul, the authorized dealer of Tata Motors Ltd., for which the complainant paid Rs. 7,37,578/- in cash on 25-04-2012. The complainant paid Rs. 13,300/- to the Prop. Surjit Repair Works against bill No. 541 on 7-5-2012; Rs. 3,55,710/- to M/s. JGR Fabricators against bill No. 4 on 5-5-2012; Rs. 15,038/- to Kohinoor Lubricants against bill No. 3895 on 7-5-2012 and 10,200/- to Mohan Singh Body Maker against bill No. 487 on 28-4-2012 and in this way, he paid total amount of Rs. 11,31,826/- to different workshops for the repair of the said damaged vehicle. The vehicle in question is financed by Mahindra Finance Co. Ltd., and the complainant has been paying monthly installment of Rs. 58,500/- to the said finance company. The complainant alleged that he requested the opposite party to pay the claim amount, but they lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other and ultimately, rejected his claim. Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint seeking directions to the opposite party to pay Rs. 11,31,826/- alongwith interest besides compensation and cost. The opposite party filed its written statement and pleaded that the accident of the vehicle in question took place on 10-04-2012, whereas according to the route permit, supplied by the complainant to the opposite party, it was valid for the period from 12-04-2012 to 11-04-2017. Hence, on the date of accident, the said vehicle was being plied without valid route permit which is a violation of rules and regulations, and terms and conditions of the policy. The opposite party has pleaded that there is clear cut law to the effect that in case there is no valid route permit on the date of accident, no liability can be fastened on the Insurance Company. The complainant was informed regarding the same vide circular No. HO/MTD/PT/Cir/39/IBD/ADM/411 dated 26-10-2004. The opposite party has mentioned Apex Court judgement CA No. 6129/04 wherein it has been held that plying the vehicle without requisite permit, is a breach of terms and conditions and the insurer is not responsible for the same. The complainant vide aforesaid letter had been informed that his claim is being repudiated since the vehicle was not having a valid permit at the time of accident. The opposite party has further pleaded that the claim has been rightly repudiated by it as per rules and the policy and as such, there is no deficiency or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party. The parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings. Arguments heard. The record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused. The submission of the learned counsel for the complainant is that the complainant purchased the said vehicle in month of March, 2012 and thereafter he applied for all the documents for his vehicle well in time and deposited the necessary fee with the concerned departments. Registration Certificate of the said vehicle was issued in the month of April, 2012, fitness certificate on 30-03-2012 and route permit on 12-04-2012, hence there is no fault on the part of the complainant if the route permit was issued by the Regional Transport Authority valid from 12-04-2012 to 11-04-2017. The complainant kept on visiting the office of Regional Transport authority, Bathinda, and it was conveyed to him that the route permit has been prepared but the signature of the officer-in-charge has not been obtained and he was asked to come on the next day. The vehicle is insured ; it met with an accident and the complainant spent about Rs. 11,31,826/- on its repair, but the opposite party has repudiated his genuine claim without any basis. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the opposite party has submitted that the claim has rightly been repudiated by the opposite party as on the date of accident, the vehicle in question was not having route permit. In support of his submission, he referred circular No. HO/MTD/PT/Cir/39/IBD/ADM/411 dated 26-10-2004. He also took support of Apex Court judgement CA No. 6129/04. The opposite party has repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 29-08-2012 Ex. C-10. The relevant portion of said letter reveals as under :- “..Reg : Motor OD claim No. 36060031120190000002 Policy No. 3606013110100003149, Veh. No. PB-03-AA-8477, DOA 10-04-2012. With Ref. To the above claim while going through the claim papers as well as other MV documents submitted by you, we have observed that accident to the vehicle has taken place on 10-04-2012 whereas route permit pertaining to this vehicle is valid for the period from 12-04-2012 to 11-04-2017. It means at the time of accident vehicle was plying without valid route permit. As per our HO circular No. HO/MTD/TP/Cir.39/IBD/ADMN/411 dated 26-10-2004, reference has been made to Apex Court judgement CA No. 6179/2004 wherein it is held that plying the vehicle without requisite permit is a breach of condition of policy and insurer has no liability. Accordingly, we regret to entertain your claim and same has been repudiated since above vehicle was not having valid permit at the time of accident.” It is the admitted fact of the parties that the vehicle in question is insured vide insurance policy Ex. C-1 for the period from 21-03-2012 to 30-03-2013. The vehicle was purchased in the month of March, 2012 and the said insurance is its first insurance policy. After purchasing the vehicle, the complainant applied for documents required to ply the vehicle on road with all the concerned departments and deposited the necessary fee with them. A perusal of Ex. C-2 registration certificate of the said vehicle reveals that it has been issued on 09-03-2012. Ex. C-3 is the fitness certificate which has been issued on 30-03-2012. Ex. R-4 is the verification report of the route permit of the vehicle in question issued by Sh. Rajan Singla, Insurance Claims Investigator, wherein he has mentioned :- “...The particulars are verified from the RTA Bathinda are true and correct. The Route Permit of vehicle No. PB-03-AA-8477 is genuine one in the name of Tirath Singh S/o Bakshish Singh R/o village Mehma Sarja, District Bathinda, for Punjab State only & valid upto 11-04-2017 w.e.f. 12-04-2012.” Admittedly the vehicle in question met with an accident on 11-04-2012 and as detailed above, the route permit is valid from 12-04-2012. The route permit cannot be obtained within a day. It is a matter of common knowledge that if the route permit is valid from 12-04-2012, this itself proves that the complainant must have applied for the same many days before 12-04-2012. Hence, if the route permit was issued by Regional Transport Authority valid from 12-04-2012, and there is hardly difference of one day between the accident and the issuance of route permit, hence the opposite party cannot absolve from its liability by referring its letter Ex. R-5. Moreover, the aforesaid investigator has given a report that the route permit is a genuine one. Keeping in view the facts, circumstances and the record place on file, this Forum is of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in not paying the genuine claim of the complainant. In this regard the special guidelines have been issued by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority vide Circular Ref. IRDA/HLTH/MISC/CIR/216/09/2011 dated 20-09-2011 to all the Insurance Companies. The relevant portion of said circular reads as under :- “The insurer's decision to reject a claim shall be based on sound logic and valid grounds. It may be noted that such limitation clause does not work in isolation and is not absolute. One needs to see the merits and good spirit of the clause, without compromising on bad claims. Rejection of claims on purely technical grounds in a mechanical fashion will result in policy holders losing confidence in the Insurance Industry, giving rise to excessive litigation.” In this regard, the support can be sought by the precedent laid down by the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh, in case titled The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., & Another Vs. M/s Puneet Pasricha, First Appeal No.1579 of 2004, decided on 05.03.2010 wherein the Hon'ble State Commission has held that :- “......The appellants cannot be permitted to frustrate the insurance claim on the technicalities.” The complainant in para No. 11 has alleged that he has spent Rs. 11,31,826/- on the repair of the vehicle in question and in support of his version, he has produced on file bills Ex. C-5 to Ex. C-9 totalling to Rs. 11,31,826/-. The opposite party in its written statement has not specifically denied this version of the complainant. The vehicle is of the manufacturing year of 2012. Hence, this forum is of the considered view that the complainant is entitled to the amount of Rs. 11,31,826/-, which he spent on the repair of the damaged vehicle. With utmost regard and humility to the authority Ex. R-2 cited by the learned counsel for the opposite party, it is distinguishable on facts as in this case, no route permit was with the complainant, but in the case in hand, route permit has been issued after one day of the accident which shows that it has been applied much prior to the accident. In view of what has been discussed above, this complaint is accepted with Rs. 50,000/- as compensation and cost. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 11,31,826/- to the complainant. The compliance of this order be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing the amount of Rs. 11,31,826/- will yield interest @ 9% P.A. from the date of institution of this complaint i.e. 14-2- 2013 till realisation.
A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned for record.
Pronounced 14-02-2013 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni)
President
(Amarjeet Paul) Member
(Sukhwinder Kaur ) Member | |
