BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH ======== Consumer Complaint No | : | 512 of 2010 | Date of Institution | : | 20.08.2010 | Date of Decision | : | 05.04.2011 |
M/s Educational Society for Health Activities (Regd.), B-26, Industrial Area, Phase-3, Mohali through its President Sh.Charanjit Singh Walia. ….…Complainant V E R S U S 1. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., through its General Manager, Main Branch (Regd. Office), Sector 17-B, Chandigarh. 2. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., through its Divisional Manager, SCO No.72, Phase-IX, 2nd Floor, SAS Nagar, Mohali. 3. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., through its Director (Regd. and Head Office) 24, Whites Road, Chennai-600014. ..…Opposite Parties CORAM: SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL, PRESIDING MEMBER DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA, MEMBER Argued by:Sh. M.S.Jandiala, Adv. for complainant. Sh.R.K.Bashamboo, Adv. for OPs PER RAJINDER SINGH GILL, PRESIDING MEMBER Succinctly put, Tata /M/Bus bearing registration No.PB-12-G-5639 was insured with the OP for the period 30.06.2007 to 29.06.2008 for an IDV of Rs.4.50 lacs. Unfortunately, the bus met with an accident on 17.03.2008. As per the complainant, he was special permit issued by the DTO, Mohali on 17.03.2008, when the vehicle met with an accident on 17.03.2008. The matter was reported to the OP who deputed its Surveyor and Loss Assessor. On the instructions of the surveyor, the complainant got his vehicle repaired by spending Rs.2,70,000/- as per invoice issued by M/s Cargo Motors Pvt. Ltd. (Annexure C-5) and sold the salvage for an amount of Rs.5,000/- on the permission of the OPs. It has been alleged that OPs recommended the claim to the tune of Rs.1,80,000/- but subsequently his claim was repudiated vide letter dated 8.4.2010 on the ground that the permit was issued after the date of accident. Hence this complaint alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. 2. In their written reply filed by the OPs, the introductory facts with regard to the issuance of the insurance policy and the factum of accident has been admitted by OPs. The main defence of OP is that the claim of the complainant was repudiated vide letter dated 8.4.2010 on the ground that the vehicle met with an accident at 8.30 a.m. on 17.03.2008 whereas the special permit was granted to the complainant at 10.00 a.m. on 17.03.2008 as per verification report (Annexure R-3/A). Besides this, it has been pleaded that the surveyor assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.1,56,008.25 and salvage for Rs.5000/- vide report (Annexure R-1). Denying all the material allegations of the complainant and pleading that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. 3. Parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 5. When the claim of the complainant was processed by OPs, it came to light that the bus was having route permit valid upto 15.09.2009 for Ropar District only. The route permit was annexed as Annexure R-2. The bus had left Mohali with students without a valid permit for Amritsar and the accident took place at 8.30 a.m. on 17.03.2008 and FIR no.55 dated 17.03.2008 was registered with the concerned police station to this effect. The driver of the bus namely Iqbal Singh had died in the accident. After the accident, the complainant connived with the transport authorities of Mohali for issuing the special permit for 17.03.2008 for permission to visit Amritsar and the same was granted after the accident i.e. after the opening of the office at 10.00 a.m. as per the verification report (Annexure R-3/A). Learned counsel for the OPs contended that until and unless the vehicle is fit to ply on the road no permit can be issued. In the present case, the vehicle was not in road worthy condition as it had already been met with an accident and the permit was issued contrary to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the complainant was not having any valid route permit at the time of accident and so the OPs had rightly repudiated the claim as the vehicle was being plied against the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The insurance policy along with the terms and conditions was annexed as R-4. We find force in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the OPs that the vehicle was not having a valid permit and the permit was obtained by the complainant by concealing the material facts. Thus, the insurance claim has been rightly repudiated by Ops. 6. In view of the above findings, there is no merit in the present case and the same is accordingly dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. 7. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned. Sd/- sd/- April 5, 2011 | [Dr. (Mrs) Madanjit Kaur Sahota] | | [Rajinder Singh Gill] | cm | Member | | Presiding Member |
| | DR. MRS MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA, MEMBER | MR. RAJINDER SINGH GILL, PRESIDING MEMBER | , | |
