This C.C. is coming on before us for hearing; in the presence of Sri. O. Seshagiri Rao, Advocate for complainant; and of Sri. V.N. Hanumantha Rao, Advocate for Opposite party; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing and having stood over for consideration, this Forum passed the following:-

O R D E R

(Per Smt.V.Vijaya Rekha, Member)

This complaint is filed under section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

2.       The brief facts as mentioned in the complaint are that the complainant is the owner of Tata India Vista car bearing No.AP-20-TV-0842, drove the same for eaking lively hood.  She obtained commercial vehicle insurance policy bearing No. 052500/31/12/01/00001286 for the said car from the opposite party.  During the existence of policy, i.e. on 24-11-2012 at early hours at about 3:30AM, the said car met with an accident, when the husband of complainant was went to drop his friend at NSP camp and while returning to his house, he tried to take right turn near Manchikanti Bhavan, all of a sudden, the engine was got off and the steering was also locked, due to which, he unable to control the car and dashed the wall of Manchikanti Bhavan, as a result, the front portion of the car was completely damaged.  Immediately, informed the police and the opposite party.  The surveyor, appointed by the opposite party, inspected the damaged vehicle and obtained necessary documents.  Thereafter, the complainant shifted the car to Venkata Ramana automobiles, Khammam and spent Rs.1,00,000/- towards repairs and submitted claim form to the opposite party.  But it repudiated the claim by the reason that the fitness certificate was expired at the time of accident.  The complainant alleges that the attitude of opposite party is illegal and against the principles of natural justice and as there is no hope of payment of insurance amount, filed the present complaint by praying to pay Rs.2,00,000/- towards charges for repairs and for mental agony and sufferance together with interest at 24% per annum and costs.

3.       In support of her case, the complainant filed affidavit and Exhibits A1 to A10.

4.       The opposite party filed counter by denying all the averments of complaint and submitted that the claim was repudiated through a letter dated 04-04-2013 as the fitness certificate was expired as on the date of accident i.e. prior to 5 months of accident.  Therefore, the complainant committed breach of policy conditions and violated the mandatory provisions of Section 56 of Motor Vehicle Act and as such the opposite party is not liable to pay any damages as claimed and prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs as there is no deficiency of service on its part. 

5.       In addition to the above said averments, both the parties filed written arguments.  Along with its written arguments the opposite party filed certified copy of policy, marked under exhibit B1.

6.       In view of above submissions, now the point that arose for consideration is,

Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for?

Point:-        

          It is the case of the complainant that her car bearing No. AP-20-TV-0842 was insured with the opposite party and had obtained passenger carrying commercial vehicle package policy bearing No. 052500/31/12/01/00001286 for the period 08-06-2012 to 07-06-2013.  During its validity, the car was dashed the wall of one function hall at Khammam town at 3:30 AM i.e. the early hours of 24-11-2012.  According to the averments of complaint,  the alleged accident was occurred when the husband of complainant went to drop his friend at NSP camp and while returning from there, he tried to take right turn at Manchikanti Function hall, at that movement, all of sudden the engine was off and the steering was also locked, he lost control over the car, dashed the wall of the function hall.  But in her written arguments, she had taken another version that she along with her husband while proceeding in Khammam town on 24-11-2012 at about 3:30 AM, when the vehicle was in running condition, suddenly the break was failed and the engine was stopped as a result the front and back portion of the car was damaged and also averred that the car was not dashed the wall of said function hall.  However, after giving  report to the police, claimed the opposite party for costs of repairs and she alleges that despite settlement, the opposite party illegally repudiated the claim to avoid payments under said policy.  On the other hand the opposite party contended that the period of fitness was expired as on the date of accident and as such it repudiated the claim as there was breach of policy conditions.  To prove its averments, the opposite party filed policy terms and conditions and referred the judgment of SCDRC, Mumbai, circuit bench at Aurangabad in Sri Kushaba Dnyandeo Dhawade Vs. Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (FA No.905/2008 in case No.220/2008 of District Forum, Ahmed Nagar) wherein, the Hon’ble State Commission stated that “there is a breach of law which is not permitted to be committed by any citizen.  As per terms and conditions of policy use of vehicle was free under the permit as per provisions of M.V. Act”.   But in support of her case, the complainant failed to file fitness certificate for the relevant period and even did not take any steps to prove her case.  After having relied upon the said judgment and after perusing the fitness certificate, marked under exhibit A5, filed by the complainant, we have come to the conclusion that the car in dispute has no fitness certificate as on the date of accident i.e. according to exhibit A5 the fitness certificate was expired on 20-06-2012, i.e. prior to 5 months of accident, which is clear violation of terms and conditions of policy, and we are of the opinion that every commercial vehicle must have proper fitness  according to the established rules to avoid danger to the lives of the passengers, who travelled in those vehicles and as such it is  mandatory for safe travelling  therefore, we cannot consider the matter in favour of the complainant and as such the point is answered accordingly against the complainant.  

7.       In the result, the complaint is dismissed.  No costs.

           Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, on this the 18^th day of December, 2015.

                                                  FAC President               Member      

                                           District Consumer Forum, Khammam

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED:-

For Complainant                                                       For Opposite party  

       None                                                                             None

DOCUMENTS MARKED:-

For Complainant                                                       For Opposite party

FAC President               Member

     District Consumer Forum, Khammam