Punjab

Patiala

CC/14/353

RajinderPal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

United India Insurance - Opp.Party(s)

Sh D S Behgal

11 May 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

 

                                      Complaint No. CC/14/353 of 22.12.2014

                                      Decided on:        11.05.2015

 

 

Rajinder Pal Singh son of Sh.Sucha Singh, resident of Village Bhatmajra, Tehsil Rajpura ,District Patiala (Punjab).

 

 

                                                                  ….........Complainant

                                      Versus

 

United India Insurance Co.Ltd. Divisional Office: Sai Market, Lower Mall, Patiala through its Divisional Manager.

 

                                                                   ….........Op

 

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act.

 

 

                                      QUORUM

 

                                      Sh.D.R.Arora, President

                                      Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member

                                      Smt.Sonia Bansal,Member           

                  

                                                                            

Present:

For the complainant:   Sh.D.S.Behgal , Advocate

For Op       :                  Sh.D.P.S.Anand,Advocate  

 

 

 

 

                                     

                                         ORDER

D.R.ARORA, PRESIDENT

1. The complainant is doing the business of honey and for that sake he maintains honey-bees boxes and for the sake of the  transportation of the same he has got a vehicle make Mahindra Bolero Camper bearing registration No.PB 11BF-2213.He got the said vehicle insured with the Op vide cover note No.198565 valid for the period 26.3.2013 to 25.3.2014.
2. In the month of February,2014, the complainant had gone to Rajasthan for transporting the boxes of the honey-bees. On 17.2.2014, when he was present there in Rajasthan that a person approached him and requested that his relative (niece) was very serious and she had to be taken to a nearby hospital for the sake of her treatment. The complainant wanted to help the said person and accordingly he brought the patient as also her relatives to a hospital in his said vehicle. After the treatment of the patient, when the complainant was returning alongwith the patient and her relatives so as to reach the Dera of the patient that the said vehicle had met with an accident and his vehicle was badly damaged. In respect of the said accident FIR No.47 dated 18.2.2014 under Section 279 and 337 IPC was lodged with P.S.Sagour District Kota (Rajasthan).The intimation regarding the accident was lodged with the Op who had deputed the surveyor , who demanded certain documents from the complainant vide his notice dated 22.4.2014 and in reply the complainant furnished the documents. The surveyor conducted the investigation and submitted the report with the op having found that the claim of the complainant was genuine and assured to help the complainant in getting his claim passed.
3. It is further the case of the complainant that he had spent about Rs.2lacs in getting his vehicle repaired. However, the complainant received a letter dated 31.10.2014 from the op having repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that the vehicle was insured as a goods carrier but at the time of the accident the same was hired by some persons which amounted to a violation of the policy terms and conditions in respect of Limitation as to use. It is averred by the complainant that the said terms and conditions are not binding upon the complainant as the same were never explained to him at the time of the issuance of the policy. It is for the op to prove that the said terms and conditions were explained to the complainant because the terms and conditions do not bear the signatures of the complainant. It is averred in condition No.7 of the policy: “Stage carriage/contract Carriage/Pvt./Service Vehicle. The policy cover use only under a permit within the meaning of Motor Vehicles Act,1988 or such carriage falling under Sub Section (3) of Section 66 of M.V.Act,1988”, ( for short the Act of 1988) and consequently there did not occur any violation of the policy. As per the averments made in the FIR, the vehicle was carrying a patient and returning back from the hospital after the treatment of the patient, meaning thereby that the vehicle was being used as an ambulance and not as private taxi. Consequently, the claim of the complainant is covered under Section 66 (3)(c) of the Act of 1988.It was further stated by the Op that the complainant had charged Rs.500/- in connection with the hiring of the vehicle but mere realization of hire charges does not change the nature of the use of the vehicle i.e. the same was being used as an ambulance and not as a private taxi.
4. It is further averred that the repudiation of the claim of the complainant by the Op resulted into the harassment as also the mental agony experienced by the complainant and even the same amounts to an unfair trade practice. Consequently the complainant has brought this complaint against the Op under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( for short the Act) for a direction to the Op to pay him Rs.2lacs with interest @12% per annum, the amount spent by him in connection with the repair of the vehicle; to pay him Rs.1lac as compensation on account of the harassment, humiliation and mental agony experienced by him and further to pay him Rs.11000/-towards the costs of the complaint.
5. On notice, the Op appeared and filed the written version. The Op has admitted the complainant having purchased goods carrying private carriage policy in respect of his vehicle No.PB-11BF-2213 for the period 26.3.2013 to 25.3.2014 for the sum insured of Rs.5,17,756/- .The Op has, however denied its liability. It is denied by the Op that the complainant had gone to Rajasthan carrying boxes of the honey-bees. The Op has also denied the plea of the complainant with regard to his having taken a patient to a hospital as concocted one. The true facts have been detailed in FIR no.47/14 dated 18.2.2014 lodged with P.S.Sagour District Kota lodged by one Sh.Jai Singh who had hired the vehicle for Rs.500/- from the complainant for going to a hospital alongwith six persons and that the vehicle had met with an accident while returning from the hospital because of the rash and negligent driving of the same. The insured, thus committed the violation of the terms and conditions by carrying the passengers in a goods vehicle. Moreover, the Op had not charged any premium for covering the risk of passengers in the insured vehicle.
6. It is further averred by the Op that on receipt of the intimation of loss on 1.4.2014, the Op had immediately deputed IRDA approved surveyor and loss assessor, Patiala Sh.S.P.Singh, to assess the loss, who vide his report dated 29.4.2014 assessed the loss in a sum of Rs.94,966.21/-.It is denied that the complainant supplied all the requisite documents. Similarly it is denied that the complainant had spent Rs.2lacs  vide bills Annexure C6 to C13 in getting his vehicle repaired. The bills are said to be fake and manipulated. The complainant had failed to inform the Op about the accident immediately to enable the Op to conduct the spot survey and the same also amounts  to violation of the condition of the policy.
7. It is further the plea taken up by the Op that the claim of the complainant was repudiated vide letter dated 31.10.2014 and he was informed accordingly. It is denied that the policy terms and conditions are not binding upon the complainant, the same never having been explained to him at the time of issuing the policy. It is denied that the insured vehicle was being used as an ambulance and that by realizing the hire charges the same does not go to change the nature of the use of the vehicle. It is denied that the insured vehicle could be used as an ambulance and the same does not amount to the violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. After controverting the other allegation of the complaint going against the Op, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
8. In support of his complaint, the complainant produced in evidence Ex.CA, his sworn affidavit alongwith the documents Exs.C1 to C16 and his counsel closed the evidence.
9. On the other hand, on behalf of the Op, it’s counsel tendered in evidence Ex.OPA, the sworn affidavit of Uma Dhir, Sr.Branch Manager of the Op, Ex.OPB, the sworn affidavit of Sh.S.P.Singh, Surveyor and Loss assessor, Patiala alongwith the documents Exs.OP1 to OP10 and closed the evidence.
10. The parties failed to file the written arguments. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the evidence on record.
11. Ex.C3 is the copy of the cover note No.198865 issued by the Op in respect of the vehicle make Bolero Pickup bearing engine No.GHDIB20104 and chassis No.DIB25454.Ex.OP7, is the copy of the GCV Private Carrier  Other than 3 wheeler package policy No.1110063112P303536100 regarding aforesaid vehicle issued in the name of Sh.Rajinder Singh s/o Sucha Singh for the period 26.3.2013 to 25.3.2014.The vehicle was meant to be used for private purposes.Ex.C1 is the copy of the certificate of registration of the vehicle bearing registration No.PB-11BF-2213 in respect of the vehicle bearing engine No.GHIB20104 and chassis No.MANZN2GHKDIB25454.The class of the vehicle has been described as LGV. Thus, it would appear that the insured vehicle was got registered as Light Goods Vehicle.
12. Ex.C14, is the copy of the letter dated 7.10.2014 written by the Op to the complainant on the subject: Claim of your vehicle pick up van No.PB11BF-2213 and informed him: “Your above referred claim has been closed as repudiated by the competent authority for the reasons inter-alia stated herein below “As per the policy conditions under the heading limitations as to use the vehicle is Registered as goods carrying vehicle Private Carrier where as at the time of accident it was being hired by some persons as per FIR No.47/14 dated 18.02.2014 with P.S.Sangor which is violation of limitation as to use which is the breach of the conditions”.

“ The policy covers use only under a permit within the meaning of the Motor Vehicle Act,1988 or such a carriage falling under sub section (3) of Section 66 of the Motor Vehicle 1988”.

In view of the above the competent authority has closed the above claim as repudiated due to violation of conditions under the heading “Limitations as to use” under which the claim has been reported”.

13. It is the plea taken up by the complainant that at the time of the loss of the vehicle, the same was being as an ambulance and therefore, it was submitted by Sh.D.S.Behgal, the learned counsel for the complainant that the provisions under Section 66(1) of the Act of 1988 do not apply in view of the provisions contained under sub section (3) (c) of Section 66 above i.e. the complainant was not obliged to obtain the permit for the use of vehicle as a transport vehicle. In order to appreciate the said submission made by the learned counsel for the complainant, we reproduce the provisions contained under section 66(1) and 66(3)(c) as under:
14.  

          Provided that a stage carriage permit shall, subject to any conditions that may be specified in the permit, authorize the use of the vehicle as a contract carriage:

          Provided further that a stage carriage permit may, subject to any conditions that may be specified in the permit, authorize the use of the vehicle as a goods carriage either when carrying passengers or not:

          Provided also that a goods carriage permit shall , subject to any conditions that may be specified in the permit, authorize the holder to use the vehicle for the carriage of goods for or in connection with a trade or business carried on by him”

66(2)          Not applicable

66 (3) (a)   Not applicable,    66(3)(b)    Not applicable

66(3)(c) “ to any transport vehicle used solely for police, fire brigade or ambulance purposes”.

14. On the other hand, it was submitted by Sh.D.P.S.Anand, the learned counsel for the Op that as per the allegations made in the FIR No.47/14 dated 18.2.2014 lodged with P.S.Sagour, District Kotta, the vehicle of the complainant was being used  having been hired by Jai Singh s/o Manna Lal Banjara on payment of Rs.500/- for the transportation  of his niece  Inda Bai alongwith five more persons to a hospital and for coming back to the Dera of said Jai Singh after the treatment of Inda Bai and that on way back the vehicle had met with an accident. It was submitted by Sh.Anand that the vehicle was being plied as a taxi without any permit in violation of the policy terms and conditions. It was also submitted by Sh.Anand that the plea taken up by the complainant that the vehicle was exempted from obtaining a permit for carrying the passengers because the same was being used for ambulance purposes as provided under Section 66 (3)(c) of the Act of 1988 is not maintainable because admittedly the complainant had been making a use of the vehicle for transporting the boxes of the honey bees and was not  being used solely for ambulance purposes, as provided under Section 66(3)(c) of the Act of 1988.He also placed reliance upon the citation Ibne Hasan versus Oriental Insurance Company Ltd IV(2014)CPJ 102(Chhat.) and New India Assurance Co.Ltd. V. Asha Rani and others  2003 ACJ 1 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India at New Delhi.
15. We have considered the submissions and are of the considered view that since the vehicle of the complainant, at the time of the accident was being used as taxi and not as Light Goods Vehicle for transporting the goods, the complainant was not exempt from carrying a permit as required under Section 66(1) of the Act of 1988 for carrying the passengers and that the case of the complainant cannot be covered under section 66(3)(c)  of the Act of 1988 because the vehicle was not being used solely for ambulance purposes. In case the complainant wanted the benefit of the provisions contained under Section 66(3)(c) of the Act of 1988, he should have alleged that the vehicle was being used solely for ambulance purposes but admittedly he had been making a use of the same for transporting the boxes of honey bees and he had also taken the boxes of honey bees to Rajasthan. Not only that the case of the complainant is not covered under section 66(3)(c) of the Act of 1988, the complainant has not produced any permit to have been obtained by him from the Regional or State Transport Authority for carrying passengers or the goods in the vehicle in the State of Rajasthan, and therefore, the Op was justified in having repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter Ex.OP1 dated 7.10.2014.As per the insurance policy,Ex.OP7 the vehicle was meant for Private use. In the case of the citation Ibne Hasan versus Oriental Insurance Company Ltd (supra), the Hon’ble Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur placed reliance upon the citation New India Assurance Co.Ltd. v. B.Satyajit Reddy & Anr.,1(2011)CPJ 132(NC) for the observations that the vehicle continued to be registered as transport vehicle for which a specific authorized licence was statutory necessity. Driving the taxi was in contradiction of the policy conditions and therefore, the repudiation of the claim was justified. Consequently, we do not find any substance in the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed.
16.  

Dated: 11.05.2014

 

                   Sonia Bansal                Neelam Gupta                        D.R.Arora

          Member                        Member                                  President