Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/16/29

Ravinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The New India Assurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Manbir Singh Dhindsa ,Adv.

13 Jan 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPAR

                                 Consumer Complaint No. :     29 of 17.06.2016

                                 Date of decision                    :      13.01.2017

 

Ravinder Singh, son of Rattan Singh, resident of Village Magror, District Rupnagar.

                                                                 ......Complainant

                                             Versus

1. The New India Assurance Co, Ltd. Patiala, D.O. II (361500) Opp. Income Tax Office, Leela Bhawan, Patiala, through its Branch Manager.

2. The New India Assurance Co Ltd. Roper, Nangal Chowk, Roper, through its Branch Manager.  

 

                                                                   ....Opposite Parties

                                   Complaint under Section 12 of the                                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

 

                        MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

                        SMT. SHAVINDER KAUR, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY

                     Sh.Manbir Singh Dhindsa, Adv. counsel for complainant    

                     Sh. Amit Gupta, Adv. counsel for O.Ps.

 

ORDER

                                  MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

              Sh.  Ravinder Singh has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘the O.Ps.’)  

2.                    In brief, the case of the complainant is that on 07.12.2015, he had purchased a insurance policy vide policy No.36150031150100002492 from the O.Ps. for his vehicle bearing registration No.PB-11-AU-8794, which was to expire on 25.5.2016. On 30.12.2015, his vehicle met with an accident and it was badly damaged. After the said accident, he had lodged the complaint with the local police station and DDR No.10 dated 30.12.2015 was registered in PS Purkhali, District Rupnagar and also got admitted the driver in the hospital. On the day of accident, he was having all the valid papers of the said vehicle, which were required to get the claim from the insurance company. It is further stated that he spent Rs.248,000.07/- for the repair of the said vehicle and the O.Ps. passed the claim, but they did not release the claim amount. He approached and requested the O.Ps several times to pay the claim amount, but they were putting of the matter on one pretext or the other. Ultimately, they refused to release the claim amount. Hence, this complaint.

 

3.           On being put to the notice, the O.Ps. have filed written version taking preliminary objections: that initially policy No.36150031150100002492 covering vehicle with Regd. No.PB-11-AU-8794 w.e.f. 26.5.2015 to 25.5.2016 strictly subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, was issued by the company, which was later on transferred in favour of complainant for the remaining period i.e. w.e.f. 7.12.2015 to 25.5.2016; that during the validity period of the policy, complainant intimated O.Ps. on 31.12.2015 that the vehicle met with an accident on 30.12.2015;   that the insurance company had appointed Er. Shingara Singh, Surveyor & Loss Assessor for spot survey, who submitted his report dated 3.1.2016 to the company and thereafter the competent authority of the company appointed Sh. Kuldeep Singh, Surveyor & Loss Assessor for final survey, who submitted his report dated 15.2.2016. The insurance company deputed Sh. Nirmal Singh, Investigator to investigate the loss. The complainant has failed to produce the permit, covering the date of accident. The complainant was told to produce the permit, valid on the date of accident many times orally as well as vide letter dated 26.8.2016 he had given a statement that the fee of the permit was deposited on 30.12.2015, whereas, the permit was issued by the authority w.e.f. 4.1.2016 to 3.1.2021. Thus, it is clear that the vehicle was driven without valid permit at the time of accident, so the complainant was asked to reply with regard to the said fact but no reply has been received from the complainant and as such the claim is still pending for want of clarification from the complainant and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the insurance company in this  regard. On merits, the facts as mentioned in the preliminary objections taken by the O.Ps. have been reiterated on merits.  

 

4.                On being called upon to do so, the complainant tendered his affidavit, Ex. C1, photocopies of documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C14 and closed the evidence.  The learned counsel for the O.Ps has tendered affidavit of Sh. Surinderpal Sharma, Sr. Divisional Manager of OP-A, photocopies of documents Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP11 and closed the evidence.  

5.               We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the file carefully.

6.                From the perusal of copy of route permit issued by the Regional Transport Authority, Patiala, annexed at page No.3 of Ex.OP7 and also placed on record by the complainant along with the reply to the misc. application No.44 of 2016 filed by the O.Ps., it is evident that a sum of Rs.2900/- as permit fee vide receipt No. A098833 was deposited on 4.1.2016. The route permit was issued on 05.01.2016 and which was to expire on 03.01.2021. From the copy of route permit, it is clear that on the date of accident i.e. 30.12.2015, the complainant was not holding the route permit. In the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd Vs Jarnail Singh IV (2016) CPJ 360 (NC) the Hon'ble National Commission, had held that there was no permit to ply the state of Himachal Pradesh and also that no temporary permit was taken to entre into State of Himachal Pradesh. There was clear violation of Section 66, 87 and 88 of the Motor Vehicle Act. Fundamental breach of terms and conditions of policy. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we dismiss the complaint being devoid of merits. The parties are left to bear their own cost.   

7.           The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed & consigned to the Record Room.

 

ANNOUNCED                                                                              (NEENA SANDHU)

Dated: 13.01.2017                                                                             PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                                                 (SHAVINDER KAUR)

                                                                                                          MEMBER.