THE PRESIDENT

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

 

CASE No.  CC-  75 of  2019

 

Shri Ranjit Goswami,

S/O- Late Jadu Kumar Goswami,

Vill +P.O. - Battali, P.S. Sonamura,

District- Sepahijala, Tripura.

 

At present residing at Indranagar,

(Shiksha Niketan School),

Agartala, West Tripura. .............Complainants.

 

 

-VERSUS-

 

 

 

The Senior divisional Manager,

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,

4, Mantribari Road, Agartala,

West Tripura-799001. ..................Opposite Parties.

 

 

 

 

 

     __________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI RUHIDAS PAL

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

 

Dr (SMT) BINDU PAL

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

 

C O U N S E L

 

For the Complainant : Sri P. K. Debnath,

  Learned Advocate.

  

For the O.P.  : Sri G.S. Das,

  Learned Advocate.  

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON :  17.02.2021

 

 

J U D G M E N T

The Complainant's case in short is that he being the registered owner of the vehicle No. TRO7-1201(Bus) was plying the same with valid Registration, Fitness, Road Permit, Driving License, Tax Token etc. and the vehicle was duly insured with the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vide Policy no- 531000031160100014907 w.e.f. 09.11.2016 to 08.11.2027, IDV of Rs.10,02,330/- only and the premium was paid by the complainant against the said policy and the vehicle was running for his livelihood with a financial help from the financier Cholamandalam INV FIN Co. Ltd., Agartala. That on 22.01.2017 when the bus of the complainant was coming from Sonamura side towards Agartala via Bisharmganj it met with an accident at Padmanagar, under the jurisdiction of Bishramganj Police Station and as a result of the said accident the vehicle was badly damaged along with original vehicular documents due to capsized of the bus caused by the violent mob attack. The police registered case vide BRG P.S. Case No- 04/2017 U/S 279/338/435/511 of IPC against the driver of the accidental bus. The complainant made necessary arrangement to repair the damaged vehicle and 27.01.2017 the complainant intimated to the Divisional Office of the O.P. vide letter dated 25.01.2017 about the accident of the aforesaid vehicle. 

It is also stated that the complainant has submitted all the relevant documents of the damaged vehicle i.e., Registration, Fitness, Road Permit, Driving License, Tax Token, MVI Report along with estimate list of repairing cost and bill dated 01.06.2017 of M/S J.K. Motors, Authorized Dealer SM Isuzu Ltd. Khayerpur. West Tripura for the amount of Rs.3,61,706/- only (being the total repair cost of the said vehicle). Thereafter, the O.P. by issuing a letter dated 06.07.2017 asked him to submit the fitness certificate of the vehicle and the complainant also submitted the same vide letter dated 25.07.2017. O.P. again issued another letter to the DTO, Bishramganj, Sepahijala dated 13.09.2017. The complainant also submitted the Form No- 24 of Motor Vehicle Registration wherein it is shown that the fitness was up to 28.05.2018 with Insurance Policy coverage from 09.11.2016 to 08.11.2017 with the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. The complainant on several occasion approached to the O.P. for getting the claim amount. But inspite of that the O.P. had failed to release the amount and issued a letter dated 07.12.2017 rejecting the claim of the complainant with a false plea that the vehicle had operated/plied as commercial  vehicle(bus) without fitness certificate and for which the claim of the complainant is not maintainable. 

Finding no other alternative the complainant was compelled to serve a demand notice dated 26.012.2017 claiming compensation of Rs.4,61,706/- with 9% interest for the damages, unfair trade practice. In response to the demand notice the O.P. on 06.01.2018 admitting the claim of Rs.2,05,862/- only asking further to submit valid fitness certificate of the vehicle without any basis. The complainant had to suffer a lot for illegal rejection in respect of the claim of the damaged vehicle and thus the complainant is entitled to get the adequate compensation of 1,00,000/- being the amount of illegal rejection and for mental pain and harassment. Hence, this complaint. 

 

2. On the other hand, O.P. contested the complaint by filing written objection and in the written objection it is admitted that the Insurance Policy was issued against the Bus bearing no- TR 07-1201 and the vehicle had valid Registration, Road Permit, Driving License, Tax Token etc., but the vehicle had no valid fitness certificate at the time of accident. It is also mentioned that the complainant did not submit the copy of fitness certificate at the time of making claim. It is further stated that the complainant is not entitled to get any compensation as he failed to submit fitness certificate of the vehicle. It is also stated that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Insurance Company and the complaint petition is not maintainable as per provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and it is liable to be rejected.

 

3. EVIDENCE   ADDUCED   BY   THE   PARTIES:-

The Complainant submitted his examination in chief by way of affidavit. He has produced 12 documents. The documents on identification have been marked as Exhibit– 1 Series. The complainant was also cross examined by the O.P. side.

  On the other hand the O.P.  submitted examination in chief by way of affidavit and produced 5 documents. The documents on identification marked as Exhibit- A Series. 

 

4. POINTS TO BE DETERMINED:- 

  (i)Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the O.P. towards the Complainant?

  (ii)Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation/ relief as prayed for?

 

5. ARGUMENTS  OF  BOTH  SIDES:-

We have heard arguments of both sides at length. Learned Advocate Mr. P.K. Debnath appearing for the complainant argued that the complainant produced all the relevant documents as it was required and inspite of that his claim was totally rejected which is most illegal. He further argued that the surveyor appointed by the O.P. also submitted his survey report. As per Survey Report the complainant is also entitled to get Rs.2,00,5862/- and Survey Report was also prepared after verifying  all the necessary documents. Mr. Debnath also referred some decisions of the Apex Court as well National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and relying upon the decisions he submitted that the claim ought to have been settled on Non-Standard Basis rather then outright repudiation of the policy and rejection of the claim in toto.

On the other hand, Learned Advocate Mr. G. S. Das appearing for the O.P. submitted that the decision of the Apex Court and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission are not applicable in the instant case as because the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the policy and he also failed to submit the Fitness Certificate of the vehicle which is vital document to settle the claim. Mr. Das submitted that the date of accident was 22.01.2017 and the complainant could not submit Fitness Certificate in respect of the date of accident. So, as per terms and conditions of the policy the complainant is not entitled to get any compensation and O.P. rightly repudiated the claim and as such the complaint petition is liable to be dismissed.   

 

7. DECISIONS AND RESASONS FOR DECISIONS:- 

We have heard arguments of both sides at length. We have gone through the citations. We have considered the submission of both sides. We have minutely gone through the pleadings as well as evidences of both sides. The stand taken by the O.P. is that the complainant failed to produce fitness certificate of the vehicle for the relevant period and that is why the claim was repudiated. It is admitted fact that the complainant could not show or produce the relevant fitness certificate of the vehicle before the O.P. in support of his claim. From the exhibited documents submitted by the complainant we find that one inspector of Police namely, Sri Manindra Debnath who was the O/C of BRGPS lodged a suo-moto complaint to the effect that on 22.01.2017 at 17.38 hrs he received a telephonic information about the road traffic accident taken place at Padmanagar area and he noted this fact in the G.D. For reference vide BRG PS G.D. Entry No-36 dated 22.01.2017. thereafter he proceeded towards the spot along with SI and other PS staff. From the suo-moto Ejhaar it is revealed that one SML Bus bearing Registration No- TR07 -1201 met with an accident and the bus was surrounded by at least 42 to 50 persons and they hit on the bus with the help of wooden timber and brick beds. Due to that violent action, the mob attack and broken all the glasses of the bus. On perusal of the suo-moto Ejhaar it is found that the bus was damaged by a mob. Resultantly the owner of the bus that is the complainant claimed the compensation as the vehicle was insured at that relevant time. From the evidence of the O.Ps we also find that they have collected report from the District Transport Officer, Bisramganj, Sepahijala and sought for information regarding fitness certificate of the vehicle for the date of accident but they informed that as per rule 62 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules 1989 the validity of the fitness certificate is for one year. And the fitness certificate regarding the vehicle bearing registration no- TR 07-1201 (bus) was valid up to 28.05.2018. so from the fitness certificate we find that the fitness certificate does not cover the date of accident.

Now the question is whether the O.P. have rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant or not. As per provision of the M.V. Act no vehicle specially commercial can run on a public place without any fitness certificate. 

 

8. On perusal of the pleadings it appears that the complainant failed to submit the fitness certificate of the vehicle on the date of accident. In this regard Learned Counsel of the complainant referred the Provision of Rule 52 of the Central motor Vehicle Rules 1989 and giving stress on this provision of Rule 52, he submitted that unless there is a certificate of fitness the renew of Registration can not be done. We are not concerned with this provision of Rule 52. It is admitted fact that the complainant could not produce the fitness certificate to the O.P. when he was asked to submit it. The O.P.W. Sri Suman Das who is the Administrative Officer of the O.P. in his examination in chief on affidavit at Para-2 stated that the vehicle had valid Registration, Road Permit, Driving License, Tax Token etc., but the vehicle had no valid Fitness Certificate at the time of accident and complainant also failed to submit the Fitness Certificate. It is also found  from his evidence that Insurance Company by letters requested the complainant to submit the fitness certificate as early as possible to settle the claim but the complainant did not submit the valid Fitness Certificate. This is the admitted position of the instant case. So, we are in the opinion that O.P. rightly repudiated the claim.

 

9. Now the question is whether the complainant is entitled to get any compensation on Non-Standard Basis. We may refer a decision of the Apex Court which is decided in Civil Appeal No- 8463 of 2014(Narinder Singh Vrs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Ors.). In that judgment Hon'ble Apex Court dealt with almost the similar case where the vehicle had no registration at the time of accident. In that case though erstwhile District Forum, allowed compensation on Non-Standard Basis but State Commission and National Commission did not allow and ultimately matter was decided by the Apex Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court also upheld the decision of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. We are also of the opinion that the decision of Narinder Singh (Supra) squarely applicable in the present case. 

 

10. Considering the facts and totality of the circumstances of the instant case, we are in the opinion that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency of service on the part of the O.P. Hence, the complaint is devoid of merit and accordingly it is dismissed. No costs. Supply copy of the judgment to both the parties free of cost.

Announced.

 

SRI R. PAL

PRESIDENT, 

DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

 

Dr (SMT) B. PAL

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.