Punjab

Nawanshahr

CC/32/2016

Mandeep Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

United India Insurance Co LTD - Opp.Party(s)

AK Sareen

20 Nov 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SHAHEED BHAGAT SINGH NAGAR. 

 

Consumer Complaint No    :   32 of 01.04.2016 

Date of Decision              :   20.11.2017      

Mandeep Singh S/o Resham Singh R/o VPO Amargarh, Tehsil Nawanshahr, District SBS Nagar.

                                                          ….Complainant

Versus

United India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office Banga Road Nawanshahr

Opposite parties

Complaint under the Provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM:         

S.KARNAIL SINGH, PRESIDENT

S.KANWALJEET SINGH, MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES

For Complainant  :         Sh.A.K. Sareen, Advocate  

For OP                 :         Sh.Santokh Singh, Advocate

 

ORDER 

PER S.KARNAIL SINGH, PRESIDENT

1. This complaint presented by complainant, wherein it is alleged that complainant purchased one Toyota Etios Car from Nawanshahr Toyota Agency on 30.01.2015 and registration number of the vehicle is PB01-A-5394 and complainant got insured the aforesaid vehicle with Dip cap insurance from OP on 30.01.2015 which is valid from 30.01.2015 to 29.01.2016.
2. That the vehicle of the complainant met with an accident on 12.02.2015 when he came from Chandigarh to Village Amargarh, the above said vehicle being driven by Balihar Singh S/o Dilbag Singh R/o Village Amargarh, when he reached near Maruti Agency Nawanshahr, the fog was there at about 3:00 AM suddenly one animal came in front of car of the complainant and the driver tried to rescue the animal then said car of the complainant hit/struck behind the unknown vehicle due to this the bonnet of the car, both the lights and other part of the vehicle was damaged.  The driver of the said unknown vehicle ran away from the spot.  The accident was occurred due to fog and animal, regarding this fact, Balihar Singh lodged a DDR in Police Station, City Nawanshahr.  After the accident complainant gave information to Insurance Company for claim and accordingly Insurance Company appointed the surveyor who assessed the estimate of damage about Rs.1,16,000/-.  The complainant many times approached to the OP but OP postponed the mater on one aspect to other and OP never bothered about the complaint of the complainant.  Lastly, the Insurance Company issued a letter dated 14.08.2015 with allegation that the said vehicle was insured as a taxi and same plied without route permit.  The complainant approached to the office of OP number of times but the OP did not bother and ultimately they refused to compensate and as such necessity arose to file the present complaint with the request that OP be directed to pass the claim in favour of complainant and complainant may be also awarded compensation by way of damages to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/- as referred above on account of negligence and deficiency in consumer service and litigation expenses.
3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs and accordingly OP appeared through its counsel and filed written reply whereby they contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that complainant got his taxi insured for a period from 30.01.2015 to 29.01.2016 and this taxi involved in an accident on 12.02.2015 which was being plied without route permit which is clear cut violation of terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy dated 30.01.2015 and Section 66 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, hence OP is not liable to pay the compensation.  On merits, it is admitted that complainant got aforesaid policy and other allegations of the complaint are categorically denied and lastly prayed that complaint is without merit and liable to be dismissed.  
4. In order to prove the complaint, the counsel for complainant, tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex. CW1/A alongwith copy of Insurance Policy Ex.C-1, Copy of DDR Ex.C-2, copy of driving license Ex.C-3, copy of R.C. Ex.C-4, copy of letter dated 14.08.2015 Ex.C-5 and copy of invoice bill of the car Ex.C-6 and route permit Ex.C-7 and then closed the evidence. 
5. Similarly, counsel for the OP, tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Joga Singh, Branch Manager Ex.OP1/A and copy of Insurance Policy Ex.OP-1 and closed the evidence. 
6. We have heard learned counsel for respective parties and also gone through complaint file alongwith documents very minutely.
7. After taking into consideration entire facts elaborates in the complaint as well as in the reply, it has become clear that there is no dispute between the parties regarding issuance of the Insurance Policy of the vehicle bearing registration number PB01-A-5394 owned by the complainant and the copy of the Insurance Policy placed on the file by the complainant as well as by the OP as Ex.C-1 and Ex.OP-1 and it is also not denied by the OP that the insured vehicle of the complainant was met with an accident.  Rather these factum has been described by the OP in the repudiation letter dated 14.08.2015 Ex.C-5, wherein it is categorically mentioned that the insured vehicle met with an accident on 15.02.2015 and also admitted that Sh.Vishal Saini was appointed as Surveyor to assess the loss of the vehicle but it was observed that the said vehicle was taxi and same was plied without route permit which is violation of the Section 66 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and accordingly the claim of the complainant was repudiated vide aforesaid letter Ex.C-5.
8. Now question remain only whether the repudiation of the insurance claim of the complainant is rejected by the OP according to the terms and conditions of Insurance Policy for that purpose we have to go through the Insurance Policy Ex.OP-1, wherein on page-2 it is mentioned under heading that “Limitation as to use:- The policy covers only under a permit within the meaning of Motor Vehicle Act,1988 or such a carriage falling under Sub Section 3 of Section 66 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, in order to co-relate the above said exclusion clause of the Insurance Policy, we have to go through Section 66 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and as per above Section of the Motor Vehicle Act a restriction is upon the owner of the vehicle that the owner of the motor vehicle shall use or permit the use of vehicle as transport vehicle in any public place after getting the permit from the Transport Authority, the much emphasis is given on the word “shall use or permit the use of the vehicle” means that the vehicle which required a route permit is only allowed to use or permit to use for carrying passenger or goods but after getting a required permit from Competent Authority.
9. So we see the case of the complainant in the light of above Section of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, then we can say without any hesitation that the complainant was not using the vehicle for hire and transport of passenger on the relevant date i.e. on 12.02.2015, if so then the terms and conditions described in the Insurance Policy Ex.OP-1 is not applicable in the present case, because as per story elaborated by the complainant in Para No.2 that his driver Balihar Singh was coming from Chandigarh and due to fog and suddenly animal came in front of the car, accident took place, it means there is no passenger sitting in the car, if there was any passenger, then duty casted upon the OP that the car was being used for carrying passenger without permit, the said vehicle met with an accident if these facts are not proved, we can say that the vehicle was not used for hire/carrying passenger on the relevant date, if so, the permit is not required and as such we reached to conclusion that the Insurance Claim of the complainant is wrongly, illegally repudiated by the OP.   
10. In the light of above detailed discussion, the complaint of complainant is partly accepted and OP is directed to pass the claim of the complainant i.e. loss assessed by the Surveyor i.e. Rs.1,16,000/-, with interest @9% P.A. from the date of repudiation of claim i.e. 14.08.2015 till realization and further OP is directed to pay compensation to the complainant to the tune of Rs.20,000/- for mental agony and harassment to the complainant and also pay litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/-.  The above said entire compliance be made by the OP within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
11. Complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
12. Copies of the order be sent to the parties, as permissible, under the rules.

Dated 20.11.2017                                                         

 

 

(Kanwaljeet Singh)                (Karnail Singh)

Member                                  President