Delhi

East Delhi

CC/367/2015

SOMVIR - Complainant(s)

Versus

U.I.C - Opp.Party(s)

07 Jul 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 367/15

SOMVIR

S/O SHRI RAM PHAL,

R/O A-27, EKTA VIHAR,

2720713825987.  

VILLAGE BURARI

1.  
2.  

 

Vs

 

 

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.

CORE IV, 1^ST  FLOOR,

SCOPE MINAR COMPLEX,

LAXMI NAGAR

DISTT. CENTRE

DELHI-110092                                                                                                ….Opponent

 

Date of Institution: 22.05.2015

Judgment Reserved for: 25.01.2018

Judgment Passed on: 29.01.2018

 

 

Order By: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

JUDGEMENT

 

1. The present complaint pertains to allegations of unfair trade practice and deficiency in services against OP (UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.).
2. The facts are that the complainant being the registered owner of vehicle bearing no. DL IV C2323 got it insured with OP vide Policy No. 2215043114P102379678 for the period from 04.07.2014 to 03.07.2015. The said policy provided insurance against own damage, third party insurance, personal accident insurance to owner driver, paid driver & legal liability to passengers. The said vehicle was used by the complainant to earn his livelihood. It has been stated that the vehicle was duly inspected by the officials of OP and thereafter the amount of premium was determined. On 23.08.2014 the vehicle caught fire, while it was stationary, for which Delhi Fire Service & Police were promptly informed. The report was registered with Police Station Swaroop Nagar vide D.D.No. 15A, dated 23.08.2014. OP was also immediately informed and claim was registered vide claim file no. 8217. The vehicle was inspected & job card invoice of authorized service centre towards estimated cost of repair of Rs.7,59,083/- was issued. It has been stated that as the IDV was Rs.7,65,000/- thus it was to be treated as total loss but, OP offered Rs.5,50,000/- as full and final settlement after adjusting the salvage value. The complainant accepted the offer and signed the consent letter, but the claim was not settled and instead OP repudiated the claim vide letter dated 13.02.2015 on the ground of “non existence of valid fitness”. It is stated that the vehicle was stationery at the time of incident Legal notice dated 24.03.2015 demanding settlement of claim was duly received by OP, which was neither replied nor complied with. Hence, the present complaint praying for directions to OP to pay Rs.7,64,000/- along with interest @ 18% P.a, Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony & distress, Rs.2,00,000/- on account of loss of business hours & cost of litigation. Complainant  has annexed copy of I Card of complainant, copy of RC, copy of Insurance, copy of DD. No. 15 A dated 23.08.2014 P.S. Swaroop Nagar Delhi, Fire Report detail issued by Delhi Fire Services, copy of Motor Claim Form, copy of claim of intimation letter, copy of job card invoice, copy of estimate prepared by authorized service center, copy of estimate by imperial couch builders, copy of consent letter draft as given by insurance company, copy of repudiation letter dated 13.02.2015, copy of notice dated 24.03.2015 with postal receipt, copy of AD for service of notice dated 24.03.2015 and 13 photograph in original.
3. Written statement was filed on behalf of OP where they took several pleas such as the complaint involved complicated questions of law, thus, could not be adjudicated in summary proceedings, the vehicle was being used for commercial purpose the claim was repudiated on the ground that at the time of loss the Insured Vehicle did not have valid fitness certificate, which was in contravention of Sec. 56 & 84 of Motor vehicles Act, 1988 and Rule 62 of Central Motor Vehicles Rules. As the fitness certificate was valid from 06.07.2012 to 05.07.2014 and the dated of incident was 23.08.2014. It was stated that under Sec. 56 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, a transport vehicle shall not be deemed to be validity registered u/s 39 of the said act unless it carries a certificate of fitness in such form, containing such particulars & information as may be prescribed by the prescribed Authority… Moreover, under section 84 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, a valid fitness certificate is the first condition for every permit issued for a transport vehicle under Section 66 of the Motor vehicles Act, 1988. In the present case, due to absence of a valid Fitness Certificate, both the Registration and Permit of the insured vehicle were not valid at the time of the alleged loss”. It was further submitted that the Surveyor was appointed, who assessed the loss and recommended settlement on Net of Salvage Basis at Rs. 5,50,000/- with the recommendation that the Insured Vehicle was to be retained with the insurer, which was consented by the complainant too. It was on scrutiny of documents, it was found that certain documents along with fitness certificate were not submitted for which complainant was informed vide letter dated 16.12.2014. Investigation was again conducted where it was found that the Insured Vehicle did not have valid fitness certificate and even surveyor clarified vide E.mail dated 07.01.2015  that the complainant had given false information, thus in the absence of valid fitness certificate, the claim became invalid and same could be repudiated. Rest of the contents of the complaint has been denied.
4. OP has annexed, Annexure OP-1 is the surveyor report, Annexure OP-2 copy of the consent letter of the complainant, Annexure OP-3 copy of the letter dated 16.12.2014, Annexure OP-4 is copy of the report of the investigator and Annexure OP-5 is copy of the E.mail dated 07.01.2015.
5. Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by both the parties, where complainant examined himself and stated on oath the contents of the complaint. OP examined Sh. Y.R. Kanojia, senior Divisional Manager, who reiterated the contents of their written statement and got exhibited survey report as Ex. OPW1/1, consent letter as Ex. OPW1/2, letter dated 16.12.2014 requesting complainant to provide NOC & Fitness Certificate is exhibited as Ex. OPW1/3, Copy of Report dated 21.12.2014 of investigator Sh. Lalit Mohan Dhiman as Ex. OPW1/4 (colly), copy of e-mail dated 07.01.2015 issued by surveyor               Sh. Pradeep Singh as Ex. OPW1/5.
6. We have gone through the written arguments filed on behalf of both the parties and submissions made by Ld. Counsel for the complainant. It has been stated by the Ld. Counsel for the complainant that even though the vehicle did not have valid fitness certificate on the date of incident, thus, the claim of the complainant could not be repudiated, it was argued by the counsel for the complainant that the vehicle was not being used for commercial purposes and it was stationary at the time when it caught fire, whereas OP has stated that it was being used for commercial purpose. However, it is settled principle of law that a person who takes insurance policy to cover the envisaged risk does not take the policy for commercial purpose, policy is for indemnification of loss & not to generate profit. Therefore, this contention of OP cannot be considered. The OP has placed on record the fitness certificate Ex. OPW1/4 (colly) received by investigator from State Transport Authority where in the fitness of the said vehicle was valid till 05.07.2014. OP has also stated that as per Section 56 (1) of the Motor Vehicle Act which reads as under section 56: “Certificate of fitness of Transport Vehicles, subject to the provision of Section-59 & 60 a transport vehicle shall not be deemed to be validly registered for the purpose of Section 39, unless it carries a certificate of fitness in such form containing such particulars & information as may be prescribed by the Central Govt., issued by the prescribed authority……. To the effect that the vehicle complies for the time being with all the requirements of this act & the rules made there under”

Thus, from the above section, a vehicle shall not be deemed to be validly registered for the purpose of Section 39 of the Act, which deals with the registration of Motor vehicles and it was observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Narinder Singh Vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2014) 9 SCC 324”, that absence of valid registration of Motor vehicle amounted to fundamental breach of Terms and Conditions of the insurance policy. Thus, in the facts & circumstances of the case when the insured vehicle did not have valid fitness certificate as on the date of incident it was not registered, thus there has been a breach of policy terms & conditions by the complainant. Hence, OP has rightly repudiated the claim. Therefore, OP is not liable for deficiency in services and present complaint is dismissed being devoid of merits.

   Copy of this order be sent to both the parties as per law.

 

 

 (Dr. P.N. TIWARI)                                       (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)              

       MEMBER                                                                 MEMBER  

 

 

                                      (SUKHDEV SINGH)

                                                             PRESIDENT