Punjab

Patiala

CC/21/51

Usha Rani - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh. Parshotam K.Garg

10 Mar 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/ 51/2021
Date of Institution	:	10.2.2021
Date of Decision	:	10.3.2023

 

Usha Rani aged 56 years wife of Rajnish Kumar R/o H. No.1030, Shahzadpur  -58, Ambala (Haryana)

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office, SCO No.7, Chhoti Baradari, Patiala through its Divisional Manager.

                                                                   …………Opposite Party

 

Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act

 

QUORUM

                                      Hon’ble Mr.S.K.Aggarwal, President

                                      Hon’ble Mr.G.S.Nagi, Member        

 

 

PRESENT:                   Sh.Parshotam K.Garg, counsel for complainant.

                             Sh.Sanjiv Kumar Garg, counsel for OP.

                                     

 ORDER                                          

1. The instant complaint is filed by Usha Rani w/o Rajnish Kumar     (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against New India Assurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the OP) under the Consumer Protection Act (for short the Act).
2. The averments of the complainant are as follows:

           That she is the registered owner of Mohindra Bolero Pickup, bearing registration No.HR-37E-7942, model 2019, having engine No.TBK1C42534, chassis No.MA1ZU2TBKK-IC33696. The complainant purchased the said vehicle after availing loan from Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Service Ltd. Complainant got insured the said vehicle with OP for the period from 8.4.2020 to 7.4.2021 vide policy No.361400312003-00000052, through Sirjiwan Kumar Sharma, authorized agent of OP and an amount of Rs.23,355/- was deposited as premium of the said policy. Total value of the vehicle in question was assessed as Rs.5,50,000/-.

          On 30.7.2020, the vehicle met with an accident with Truck No.PB-13W-9261, at revenue limits of PP Shekh Majra, P.S.Ropar, District Nawan Shehar, Punjab due to sudden coming of a stray animal infront of the vehicle, as a result of which vehicle was totally damaged. At the time of accident said vehicle was driven by one Paramjit Singh S/o Mohinder Singh R/o village Dharamkot, PO Sanour, District Patiala. DDR No.8 dated 30.7.2020 was lodged by said Paramjit Singh.

          Complainant lodged claim with the OP for the damage of his vehicle. OP appointed surveyor and loss assessor for verification of facts and assessment of loss to the vehicle. Complainant submitted all relevant documents to the OP and the surveyor. OP falsely repudiated the claim on 20.1.2021 stating that  inspite of letter/reminder sent, complainant has not complied with the required papers/documents and closed the claim on the ground  : Closed-No Claim-Not pursued by insured, whereas complainant has submitted all the documents with regard to her claim. Complainant met OP but they put the matter off on one pretext or the other. There is thus deficiency in service on the part of the OP which caused mental agony and harassment to the complainant. Consequently prayer has been for acceptance of the complaint.

3. Upon notice, Op appeared through counsel and filed written statement. In the preliminary objections it is submitted that the OP has no liability to pay any claim/compensation to the complainant as  she has willfully breached the terms and conditions of the Insurance policy and law by driving the vehicle No. HR-37E-7942 without permit in Punjab State at the time of accident. It is further pleaded that the accident took place on 30.7.2020 at about 5.50AM and complainant has produced the check post tax E receipt No.PBT2007302929391 issued by Govt. of Punjab on 30.7.2020 at about 10.03AM valid from 30.7.2020 (10.12AM) to 30.9.2020(11.59PM).As such tax was deposited after accident and also receipt has been issued after five hours of the accident. Furthermore, complainant failed to produce permit for Punjab State and required documents despite of writing so many letters.
4. On merits, it is submitted that loss has been assessed to the tune of Rs.4,22,000/- on NOS basis without RC as per report. It is also submitted that route permit as attached with the complaint is of State of Haryana and not of State of Punjab. The claim has been rightly repudiated. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. After denying all other averments, OP prayed for dismissal of complaint.
5. In evidence, complainant alongwith her counsel tendered her affidavit, Ex.CA alongwith documents Exs.C2 to C7 and closed the evidence.
6. On the other hand, ld. counsel for OP tendered in evidence, Ex.OPA affidavit of Sh.Narinder Singh Kailay, Sr. Divisional Manager, of OP alongwith documents Exs.OP1 to OP9 ( Ex.OP7 consists of seven pages) and closed the evidence. Vide additional evidence the ld. opposite counsel has also tendered copy of Motor (final)survey report,Ex.OP10 and closed additional evidence.
7. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
8. The complainant is the owner of vehicle Mohindra Bolero Pickup having registration No.HR-37E-7942, copy of RC is Ex.C2. Route permit of the said vehicle issued by Secretary, RTA, Ambala was valid from 6.5.2019 to 5.5.2024,in the state of Haryana, copy of which is Ex.C3.The vehicle was insured with the OP vide policy No.3614003120030000052, for the period 8.4.2020 to 7.4.2021, for a total value of Rs.5,50,000/-, copy of policy schedule cum certificate of insurance is Ex.C4.The said vehicle which was driven by Parmajit Singh s/o Mohinder Singh R/o village Dharamkot, met with an accident in the revenue limits of PP Shekhan Majra, P.S.Rohru, District Nawan Shehar, Punjab on 30.7.2020. Copy of driving licence of the driver Paramjit Singh is Ex.C5. DDR, Ex.C6 was lodged with the police station Shekhmajra.Claim was lodged with the OP. However, the same was closed vide Ex.C7, on the ground, “Claim being not pursued by the insured”, copy of the same is Ex.C7.These facts and documents have not been disputed by the OP.
9. Sh.Narinder Singh Kailay, Sr. Divisional Manager of the OP in his sworn affidavit, Ex.OPA has deposed that the complainant had violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy as the route permit issued to the complainant was valid only in the State of Haryana and was not valid in the State of Punjab, where accident took place. He has further deposed that tax receipt produced by the complainant  dated 30.7.2020 i.e. the date of accident is timed at 10.03AM and was valid from 30.7.2020 (10.12AM) to 30.9.2020 (11.59PM), whereas the accident had taken place at 5.50AM on 30.7.2020, before the deposit of tax with the State of Punjab. This is the only ground on which the claim of the complainant was repudiated.
10. The OP has relied upon the judgment in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.Chella Bharathamma(SC) 2005(2)J.C.R.81 , wherein it has been held that statutory defences available to the insurer are confined to those provided in Section 149(2) which includes violation of conditions of permit. A person plying the same without permit cannot be placed at a better pedestal vis-à-vis one who has a permit, but has violated any condition thereof. Insurer cannot be made liable for such vehicle.
11. The facts of this case are different to the facts of the case in hand. In this case the vehicle which met with an accident was not having any permit. However, while disposing of the said petition, Hon’ble Supreme Court’s residual question is what would be the appropriate direction? Considering the beneficial object of the Act, it would be proper for the insurer to satisfy the award, though in law it has no liability. As such the Hon’ble Court has held that it would be proper for the insurer to satisfy the award.
12. Similarly, in the case of  United India Insurance Co. Ltd.Vs. Dharam Raj 2005(2)WBLR 970(NC), it has been held that “No owner of a motor vehicle shall use or permit the use of the vehicle as transport vehicle in any public place whether or not such vehicle is carrying any passenger or goods save in accordance with the conditions of a permit granted or countersigned by Regional or State Transport Authority or any prescribed authority authorizing the use of the vehicle in that place in the manner in which the vehicle is being used”. In this case also the owner was not having valid permit.
13. Ld. counsel for the complainant has placed reliance upon the advisory issued by the Govt. of India, Ministry of Road Transport & Highways, dated 9 June,2020, wherein relaxation has been given for extension of  the validity of documents related to Motor Vehicles Act,1988 and Central Motor Vehicle Rules,1989 and further to consider relaxation in permit, fees/taxes etc., wherein it has been advised that ‘the validity of Fitness, Permit (all types), Driving Licence, Registration or any other concerned document(s) whose extension of validity could not or not likely be granted due to lock-down and which had expired  since 1^st of Feb,2020 or would expire by 30^th of June 2020, the same may be treated to be valid till 30^th of September, 2020. The same has been adopted by Govt. of Punjab vide memo No.17078-179 dated 1.7.2020, issued by the office of State Transport Commissioner, Punjab.
14. However, ld. counsel for the OP has argued that these instructions are valid only for the extension of the existing documents and are not valid for the documents which are not in possession of the complainant at the time of accident, which have not been extended as per the Govt. instructions.
15. After giving careful consideration to the arguments addressed by ld. counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the vehicle was having a valid permit in the State of Haryana and as such the judgments relied upon by the OP do not extend any help to it as the vehicle in question in those judgments was not having any valid route permit at all. Moreover, relaxation has been given due to existence of Covid by the Central as well as State Govt. for the validity of route permit. Further the topographical area of Punjab & Haryana is almost similar in nature. It is found that the OP was not justified to repudiate the claim of the complainant on the basis of such type of hyper technicalities. Thus, we find that loss assessed by the OP to the tune of Rs.4,22,000/- on NOS basis without RC is admissible to the complainant. We accordingly partly allow the complaint with the following directions to the OP:

1. To pay the amount of Rs.4,22,000/- to the complainant, as assessed vide report,Ex.OP10 , alongwith interest @6% per annum from the date of  repudiation i.e. 20.1.2021 till realization,  within 30 days from the date of receipt of free certified copy of this order, failing which OP shall pay interest on the said amount @9% per annum till realization.
2. Rs.5000/-be also paid to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to her within prescribed period.

16. The instant complaint could not be disposed of within stipulated period due to Covid protocol and for want of Quorum for long time.
85109252238716.  
85109252238717.  

                                              G.S.Nagi                           S.K.AGGARWAL

                                              Member                          President