BEFORE THE DISTT.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM; FATEHABAD.

C.C.No. 42 of 2016.

Date of Instt.: 29.01.2016.

Date of Decision: 02.01.2017.

Ajit Singh aged 35 years son of Rameshwar resident of Dhani Bhojraj, Sanchla, Tehsil Tohana District Fatehabad.

                                                                    ..Complainant

     Versus

The New India Insurance Company Limited Branch Office Near Sawan Cinema, Chandigarh Road, Tohana Tehsil Tohana District Fatehabad through its Branch Manager.

                                                                   ..Opposite Party.

                                  Complaint under Section 12 of CP Act.

Before:                  Sh.Raghbir Singh, President.                                                                             Smt. Ansuya Bishnoi, Member.

Present:       Sh.M.R.Godara, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh.N.D.Mittal, Advocate for opposite party.

ORDER

                     The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite party with the averments that he got his vehicle Truck Eicher Can/HCV (goods carrying vehicle) bearing registration No.HR68-A-1437 insured with opposite party vide policy No. 35340431140100000379 having validity from 23.05.2014 to midnight of 22.05.2015 for sum assured of Rs.3,80,000/-. It has been further averred that on 10.04.2015 when the vehicle, loaded with Papaya, was standing in the secured shed at village Patron District Jalgaon (Maharashtra) then during midnight, due to heavy storm, shed under which the vehicle was standing, fell down on it and due to this the vehicle  got badly damaged. The complainant gave intimation regarding this to the insurance company and thereafter surveyor inspected the vehicle and collected the necessary documents from him. The vehicle was brought at Tohana with the help of Partap Crain Services, Hisar Road, Tohana where the surveyor again inspected the  vehicle and asked that all the expenses of repair would be borne by the insurance company on furnishing of bills etc., therefore, on his direction vehicle was got repaired.  The complainant spent Rs.1,36,680/- for getting the repair work done and also submitted the bills and relevant documents with the insurance company and also completed all the formalities but despite that the insurance company has repudiated the claim of the complainant without any basis in the end of November, 2015 on the ground that the driver was not having effective driving licence, the route permit was not valid and the vehicle loaded with papaya was not covered with TIRPAL. The complainant has requested the insurance company to settle the claim but all fell on deaf ears.  The act and conduct of the OP-insurance company clearly amounts to deficiency in service on its part. Hence, this complaint. In evidence, the complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1 and documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C7 on the case  file.

2.                  On being served, opposite party appeared and resisted the complaint of the complainant by filing its reply wherein it has been submitted that on the day of incident dated 10.04.2015 spot survey was done by Shri Yogesh S.Pathak, Surveyor and Loss Assessor and during investigation it was found that the vehicle was being driven by one Shri Niwas son of Chander Bhan but his driving licence No.3421 was not found effective being not issued by the concerned DTO, Gurdaspur. It has been further submitted that the said vehicle was being used at Jalgaon in the State of Maharashtra and on the date of incident i.e. 10.04.2015 the route permit was not effective because it was valid from 17.07.2015 to 17.07.2017. Since the complainant had violated the terms and conditions of the policy and MV Act but despite that the loss was assessed to the tune of Rs.80,500/- and after deduction of necessary amounts such as salvage value and policy excess clause the net payable amount was Rs.73,000/-.  It has been further submitted that the insurance is a contract and both the parties are bound by the terms and conditions of policy but in the present case the complainant has violated the policy conditions and MV Act, therefore, his claim was rightly repudiated.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP. Other pleas made in the complaint have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.  In evidence, the OP has tendered affidavit of Sh.I.C.Sirohi, Divisional Manager as Ex.RW1/A and documents as Annexure R1 to Annexure R8 on the case file.

3.                Learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the case file has been perused very carefully.

4.                Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the occurrence/accident had taken place during the subsistence of the policy and regarding this claim was lodged with OP but it repudiated the claim wrongly and illegally with remarks that the driving licence of the driver and route permit of the vehicle in question was not valid at the time of accident. It has been further argued that the insurance contract was for indemnification of the loss suffered by the insured due to accident and nothing beyond that and the insured cannot be denied benefit of the contract on this account.  Moreover, when the occurrence/accident took place at that time the vehicle was not plying on the road and the same was standing under the shed; therefore, the issue of having a valid licence by the driver has become irrelevant.

5.                Learned counsel for the OP has argued that the complainant is not entitled for any claim as he himself has violated the insurance contract because the route permit was not effective on the day of accident (10.04.2015) as it was valid from 17.07.2015 to 17.07.2017, therefore, the insurance company cannot be held liable to pay any claim/compensation. In support of his arguments he has placed reliance of case laws titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Rapider Kaur & Ors. 2016 (2) Law Herald (Punjab & Haryana) page 196 and Pal Singh Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited III (2012 (CPJ 489 (NC).   Counsel for the OP’s has also placed on reliance on the judgment titled as New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Rajesh Yadav 2013 (2) CPJ page 398 (NC) wherein the Hon’ble National Commission held that having permit for particular place is necessary condition and its violation does not lead complainant to have compensation on non-standard basis.   

6.                The contentions put-forth by learned counsel for the OP have weight because perusal of Annexure R4 issued by Secretary, RTA Fatehabad, Haryana printed on 21.05.2015 reveals that the validity of NP
Authorization starts from 17.07.2015 and the same is upto 17.07.2017. In the present case as per the version of the complainant the accident had occurred on 10.04.2015 when the vehicle was standing in secured shed at village Patron District Jalgaon (Maharashtra).  Since the accident had taken place when the route permit for Maharashtra was not effective therefore, the OP has justified in repudiating the claim of the complainant. It is a settled law that he who seeks equity must do equity with others but in the present case on one hand the complainant has violated the insurance contract intentionally and deliberately and on the other hand approached to this Forum in order to take undue advantage of benevolent provisions of Consumer Protection Act.  The present case is squarely covered by the judgment cited as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Rupinder Kaur & Ors. (supra) decided on 08.04.2016, wherein the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that no transport vehicle which includes a bus of educational institution as per Section 2 (47) of Motor Vehicles Act can be allowed to ply without a permit and in that circumstances the liability of the insurer would not arise. Hon’ble High Court while disposing of the said case has relied upon a case law titled as National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Chella Bharathama 2004 (4) RCR (Civil ) 399 (SC) wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that Plying of a vehicle without a permit is an infraction. Further, Hon,ble National  in case titled as  Pal Singh Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited (supra) held that Insurance vehicle met with accident- Validity of route permit- Breach of policy condition- Claim repudiated- Alleged deficiency  in service- District Forum allowed complaint- State Commission allowed appeal- Hence revision- To hold valid route permit, necessary fee for the period had not been paid  on this route permit- Route permit could not be regarded as valid permit in force on the day of accident- Repudiation justified.     The present case is fully covered by the case laws relied upon by learned counsel for the OP. The decision of the OP by repudiating the claim is well reasoned and justified and it cannot be held to be illegal.

7.                          Hence, in view of above discussed factual as-well-as legal position, we are of the considered view that the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. We order accordingly. There is no order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

02.01.2017                                        (Raghbir Singh)                                                                                                                   President,                                                                                                                  District Consumer Disputes                                                                                                Redressal Forum, Fatehabad.

(Ansuya Bishnoi)                                                                                                           Member