Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/881/2019

Parveen Malik - Complainant(s)

Versus

Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Devinder Kumar

21 Apr 2022

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/881/2019
Date of Institution	:	28/08/2019
Date of Decision	:	21/04/2022

 

Parveen Malik son of Sh.Rohtas Malik, resident of House No.100/1, Subhash Nagar, Manimajra, Chandigarh.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited, SCO 9, First Floor, Above Central Bank of India, Sector 10, Panchkula through its Branch Manager.
2. HDFC Bank Limited, Plot No.28, Phase-1, Industrial Area, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	SURJEET KAUR	PRESIDING MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                

ARGUED BY	:	Sh.Devinder Kumar, Counsel for complainant.
	:	Sh.Sahil Abhi, Counsel for OP No.1.
	:	Sh.Harjit Singh Kathpal, Counsel for OP No.2.

 

Per Suresh Kumar Sardana, Member

1.      Briefly stated the allegations are that the complainant got insured one Maruti Alto car bearing registration No.CH-02-AA-8510. Insured policy was effective from 10.12.2018 to 09.12.2019 with the Opposite Party as Taxi. Copy of the insurance policy and registration certificate is annexed as Annexure C-1 & C-2. As per complaint, on 21.03.2019 aforesaid Alto Car met with an accident over the flyover Panipat, Haryana and resulting to which the car was badly damaged. The Copy of driving license is annexed as Annexure C-3. At the time of accident there is no passenger in the vehicle and it was brought to Chandigarh. At the time of accident it was not used for any commercial purpose. Copy of GDR No.28 is annexed as Annexure C-4. As per complainant, due information with regard to the accident was given to Opposite Party and under the direction of the Opposite Party car was taken to the authorized repairer M/s Harison Automobiles, G.T. Road Panipat-132 103. The loss of estimate was prepared by the aforesaid Authorzed repairer for a sum of Rs.4,96,329/- (Annexure C-5). The complainant approached the Opposite Party No.1to know about the status of his claim and requested the Opposite Party to release the claim amount. Instead of paying the genuine claim of the complainant, the Opposite Party No.1 with mala fide intention repudiated the claim vide repudiation letter dated 23.05.2019 (Annexure C-6). At the time of accident complainant was having effective National Route Permit and as per the National Route permit complainant can drive the vehicle all over India Annexure (C-7). As per complainant, vehicle is financed with the Opposite Party No.2, due to reason of accident vehicle is now off the road and complainant could not utilize the same. Further due to non-release of the claim amount to the complainant. The Opposite Party No.2 is pressuring the complainant for installment of loan amount.  The complainant issued legal notice dated 06.08.2019 to the Opposite Parties (Annexure C-8) Colly. Alleging that the aforesaid act amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Parties, complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.     Opposite Party No.1 contested the consumer complaint. In the present case the stand of the Opposite Party No.1 is that the insurance policy is a contract in itself and the parties are bound by the terms and conditions of the policy. Copy of insurance policy alongwith terms and conditions of the insurance policy is annexed as Annexure OP/1-1. As per surveyor and loss assessor who had personally inspected the vehicle, took the photographs and other documents, driving Lic/Fitness Cert/Road permit etc. The insured vehicle was plying in Haryana State and the route permit is valid for Chandigarh only. The material fact was brought to the knowledge of the complainant, and also as verbally conveyed to the complainant. The permit is not valid in the state in which it was driven at the time of accident. The copy of survey report is annexed as Annexure OP/1-2. The claim of the complainant was repudiated as no claim vide letter dated 23.05.2019 on the ground that the claimant/vehicle was not having valid permit at the time of loss as authorization permit was not effective in the area where the vehicle was plying at the time of the accident which is a violation of Section 66 of the Motor Vehicle Act. On these lines, the case is sought to be defended by the Opposite Party No.1.
3.     Opposite Party No.2 contested the consumer complaint. In the present case the stand of the Opposite Party No.2 is that the said vehicle is financed by Opposite Party No.2. The complainant was provided the loan facility of Rs.4,10,156/- which was repayable by the complainant in 63 monthly installments of Rs.8564/- each. The installment start date was 07.01.2019 and the loan end date was 07.03.2024. The complainant or insurance company may be directed to pay the loan amount directly to the Opposite Party No.2. On these lines, the case is sought to be defended by the Opposite Party No.2.   
4.     Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
5.     Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
6.     We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and gone through the record of the case. After perusal of record, our findings are as under:-
7.     Per pleadings of the parties and on perusal of Annexure OP/1/1 one of the conditions in the insurance policy under the head “Limitation as to use is reproduced as below:

         “The policy covers use 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 Motor Vehicle Act 1988”. The permit is defined under MV Act under Section 2 (31) as under: “Permit means a permit issued by a state or regional transport authority or an authority prescribed in this behalf in this act authorizing the use of a motor vehicle as transport vehicle”. It is also mentioned in Section 66 of MV Act that: “No owner of a motor vehicle shall use or permit the use of a vehicle as a transport vehicle in any public space whether or not such vehicle is actually carrying any passengers or goods save in accordance with conditions of a permit granted or counter signed by a regional or state transport authority or any prescribed authority authorizing him to use of the vehicle in that place in the manner in which the vehicle is being used. This provision of MV Act implies that a passenger carrying vehicle or a good carrying vehicle must hold valid and effective permit at time of loss and the vehicle is to be used by owner of vehicle only at the place for which he is authorized to use the vehicle as per permit. Hence it is not necessary that at the time of accident the vehicle is actually carrying any passenger or goods.

8.     On perusal of insurance policy it is observed that the policy covers use of vehicle only under a permit within the meaning of MV Act. As per permit which is annexed as Annexure C-7 and OP1/3 and OP 1/4 the owner is permitted to drive the vehicle only within territory of Chandigarh. No permit is issued or produced on record by the complainant to show that the complainant was authorized to drive the vehicle in state of Haryana where the accident took place i.e. (Panipat). Thus, we are of the concerted view that complainant was not having any valid permit on date of loss as per requirement of law and policy. It is an admitted case of complainant that Taxi in question met with an accident at Haryana (Panipat) and his claim was repudiated as no claim on ground that authorized permit was not effective in the area where vehicle was playing at time of accident which is a violation of Section 66 of Motor Vehicle Act. The said violation of law amounts to fundamental breach of law and policy terms and conditions.
9.     In view of the aforesaid discussion and the reasons recorded hereinbefore, we do not find any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties. Accordingly, the consumer complaint, being meritless, is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
10.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
21/04/2022	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]
Ls	Member	Presiding Member