DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 404 of 23.9.2016

                                      Decided on:         9.3.2021

Avtar Singh S/o Sh.Inder Singh, village and Post Office Giga Majra, Tehsil and District Mohali.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1. United India Insurance Company Ltd., through its Divisional Manager, Divisional office, Sai Market, Patiala.
2. Pepsu Road Transport Corporation Patiala through its Managing Director Nabha Road, Patiala.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President

                                      Sh.Y.S.Matta, Member 

ARGUED BY

                                      Sh.Surinder Gupta, counsel for complainant.

                                      Sh.D.P.S.Anand, counsel for OP No.1.

                                      Sh.J.D.Bansal, counsel for OP No.2.                                      

 ORDER

                                      JASJIT SINGH BHINDER,PRESIDENT

1. This is the complaint filed by Avtar Singh (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and another (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s) under the Consumer Protection Act.

Facts of the complaint

2. Briefly the case of the complainant is that he is the owner of bus No.PB-11-AS-9928 and was insured with OP No.1 vide insurance policy No.1110003114P106214499 for the period from 31.10.2014 to 30.10.2015 for the sum of Rs.9lac and the said bus has been given to OP No.2 on lease agreement deed dated 7.7.2010 and will ply the same on the route on which the OP No.2 holds valid stage carrier route permits.
3. It is averred that unfortunately on 9.5.2015 the said bus met with an accident and FIR No.72 dated 9.5.2015 was registered with Police Station Dehra District Kangra, Himachal Pardesh U/s 279, 337 IPC on the statement of Sh.Inder Kumar s/o Sh.Dharam Chand against the driver of the bus Sh.Lakhwinder Singh S/o Joginder Singh. Complainant completed all the formalities and supplied the same to OP No.1 on its demand but OP No.1 repudiated the claim vide letter dated 29.2.2016 on the ground that the ‘route permit of the bus was not valid at the time of accident’ whereas the bus in question was having valid route permit upto 30.9.2017.Thus there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and are liable to pay the claim amount. Hence this complaint with the prayer to accept the same by giving directions to the OPs to  pay a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- on account of damage caused to the bus; to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation and also to pay Rs.25000/- as litigation expenses alongwith interest @12% per annum from the date of accident till realization.
4. Notice of the complaint was duly served upon the OPs who appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written replies.

Reply/Written statement

5. In the written reply filed by OP No.1 preliminary objections have been raised to the effect that the complaint is not maintainable as the claim of the complainant has already been repudiated on the ground that the bus in question was being plied without valid route permit at the time of accident.
6. On merits it is denied that the complainant had given the insured bus to OP No.2 under lease agreement dated 7.7.2010. The issuance of the policy in question is admitted. It is further submitted that on receipt of intimation of loss on 1.6.2015 OP No.1 immediately deputed IRDA approved surveyor and loss assessor Sh.Rajinder Mohan Chauhan of Hoshiarpur for spot survey who submitted his report on 10.7.2015 and Sh.A.S.Sodhi IRDA approved surveyor and loss assessor Jalandhar for final survey who submitted his report on 10.10.2015 and assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.1,69,301.65 and the claim of the complainant was repudiated as the said bus was not having effective and valid route permit on the date of accident. As per route permit submitted by the complainant it was renewed on 13.11.2015 to 30.9.2017 and the date of accident is 9.5.2015.So there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. After denying all other averments, OP No.1 prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
7. In the reply filed by OP No.2 it also raised preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable; that the bus in question has been induced by the complainant Avtar Singh under Km scheme of PRTC, Patiala in lease agreement with PRTC ; that the matter does not fall under the Consumer Protection Act.
8. On merits, it is submitted that as per clause 31 the owner of bus himself is responsible for the damage if any caused to the vehicle by rash driving of the bus driver. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2.After denying all other averments OP No.2 also prayed for dismissal of complaint.
9.  
9. In support of the complaint, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C7 and closed the evidence.
10. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for OP No.2 tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Manjit Singh Narang, MD PRTC, Patiala alongwith documents Ex.OP1 and closed the evidence.
11. The ld. counsel for OP No.2 has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA/1affidavit of Smt.Kanta Devi, Divisional Manager, Ex.OPB affidavit of Sh.A.S.Sodhi, surveyor alongwith documents Exs.OP1/1 to Ex.OP6 and closed the evidence.
12. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
13.  
13. The ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant is owner of the bus in question and vide lease dated 7.7.2010 the OP No.2 has introduced the same in kilometers scheme. The ld. counsel further argued that bus was insured with the OP No.1 vide insurance policy for the period from 31.10.2014 to 30.10.2015 for the sum of Rs.9lacs.The ld. counsel further argued that the bus met with an accident and the surveyor was appointed who assessed the loss of Rs.2,50,000.The ld. counsel further argued that all the formalities were completed  by the complainant by the OPs have repudiated the claim illegally and he had relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in the case titled as National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Narinder Gupta 2017(4)CLT 253.
14. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for OP No.1 has argued that the claim was rightly repudiated as the vehicle was being plied without route permit no amount can be given to the insurer and has relied upon the judgments The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Dilbagh Singh and others 434 PLR Vol.CLXXXV-(201701), Amrit Paul Singh and another Vs. Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd. and others 346 PLR Vol.CLXXXV-(2017-1) and Teja Ram and another Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and another 2017 ACJ 766.
15. The ld. counsel for OP No.2 has argued that the liability is of OP No.1 and they have got no concern with the insurance policy.
16. To prove the case, the complainant has tendered his affidavit, Ex.CA and he has deposed as per his complaint, Ex.C1 is the repudiation letter dated 29.2.2016  of OP No.1,Ex.C3 is the FIR dated 9.5.2015,Ex.C3 is route permit issued in the name of GM, PRTC, Kapurthala. Admittedly the bus was given on lease to OP No.2 i.e. PRTC and PRTC was plying this bus on the basis of regular route permit which was issued by the Regional Transport Authority in favour of G.M.Pepsu Road Transport Aauthority. So, it is clear that the bus in question was being plied with the valid route permit, Ex.C4 is registration certificate of the bus, Ex.C6 is lease agreement with Avtar Singh and PRTC which was duly signed by both the parties,Ex.C7 is insurance policy valid for the period from 31.10.2014 to 30.10.2015 of the bus in question.
17. On the other hand Sh.Manjit Singh Narang, MD,PRTC tendered his affidavit, Ex.OPA and he has deposed as per the written statement, Ex.OP1 is rules of Kilometers scheme of PRTC, Ms.Kanta Devi DM of OP No.1 has tendered her affidavit,Ex.OPA/1  and she has deposed as per the written statement, Ex.OPB is the affidavit of A.S.Sodhi,surveyor and he has assessed the total loss to the tune of Rs.1,69,310.65 and his report is Ex.OP1/1,Ex.OP2 is the insurance policy,Ex.OP3 is repudiation letter,Ex.OP4 is lease agreement,Ex.OP6 is FIR.
18. Admittedly the bus in question was duly insured with OP No.1 for the period from 31.10.2014 to 30.10.2015 and was admittedly given on lease to PRTC and the lease deed duly signed by both the parties is duly proved on the file vide Ex.C3 and the repudiation letter is  Ex.C1. This repudiation is totally illegal and was written by the Divisional Manager without applying his mind as the sole purpose of insurance company i.e. OP No.1 is only to defeat the right of genuine claims and this gives a very bad picture of Govt. aided companies who take the premium as per law and when their turn comes to give the claim they repudiate the same on the frivolous and false basis. In the present case the route permit in the name of PRTC is Ex.C3. It has been clearly observed by the Hon’ble National Commission in the case National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Narinder Gupta (supra) that one the permit has been renewed, it has effect from the date of expiry meaning thereby once the permit was renewed, the vehicle shall be deemed to have a valid permit. So it is clear that the vehicle was having valid permit and it was being plied under kilometer scheme by the Govt. owned PRTC (OP No.2).
19. Admittedly bus in question met with an accident and FIR is on the file and as per surveyor report total loss of Rs.1,69,310.65 was suffered by the bus. There is no evidence lead by the complainant that the bus suffered loss of Rs.2,50,000/-
20. So due to our above discussion, surveyor report has to be accepted and the complaint stands partly allowed accordingly. The OP No.1 is directed to pay the amount of Rs.1,69,310.65 to the complainant alongwith interest @6% per annum from the date of repudiation i.e. 29.2.2016 till realization. The OP No.1 is further directed to pay Rs.25000/- as compensation and further Rs.25000/- as cost of litigation. The insurance company is well advised that it should not repudiate the genuine claims of the respective parties. Compliance of the order be made by the  OP No.1 within a period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order.

ANNOUNCED

DATED:9.3.2021

                                               Y.S.Matta               Jasjit Singh Bhinder

                                               Member                            President