State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Ravinder Singh vs The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. on 1 September, 2017
2nd Additional Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. 281 of 2017
Date of Institution : 19.04.2017
Date of Decision : 01.09.2017
Ravinder Singh, aged about 39 years son of Rattan Singh,
resident of Village Magror, Tehsil & District Ropar.
....Appellant/Complainant
Versus
1. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Patiala, DO II (361500)
Opposite Income Tax Office, Leela Bhawan, Patiala, through its
Branch Manager.
2. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Ropar, Nangal Chowk,
Ropar, through its Branch Manager.
....Respondents/Ops
First Appeal against the order dated
13.1.2017 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Ropar.
Quorum:-
Shri Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member.
Shri Rajinder Kumar Goyal, Member
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. K.S. Saini, Advocate
For the respondents : Sh. Sukhdarshan Singh, Advocate
GURCHARAN SINGH SARAN, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER
ORDER
First Appeal No. 281 of 2017 2 The appellant/complainant (hereinafter referred as complainant) has filed the present appeal against the order dated 13.01.2017 passed in consumer complaint No. 29 dated 17.6.2016 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ropar (hereinafter referred as the District Forum) vide which the complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed.
2. Complaint was filed by the complainant under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short 'the Act') against the respondents/opposite parties (hereinafter referred as Ops) on the averments that the complainant purchased policy No. 36150031150100002492 for his vehicle No. PB11-AU-8794 on 7.12.2015, valid upto 25.5.2016. However, the vehicle met with an accident on 30.12.2015. In this regard, DDR No. 10 dated 30.12.2015 was registered in P.S. Purkhali, District Rupnagar. It was badly damaged and its loss was assessed as Rs. 2,48,000.07p. The complainant submitted the claim but it was delayed on one pretext or the other and was not paid to the complainant. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of Ops, complaint was filed before the District Forum seeking directions against the Ops to pay a sum of Rs. 2,48,000.07p alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of claim, compensation of Rs. 1 Lac and litigation expenses of Rs. 5500/-.
3. Complaint was contested by the Ops, who filed their written reply stating that policy No. 36150031150100002492 was issued in favour of the complainant for the period 26.5.2015 to 25.5.2016. The complainant gave intimation on 31.12.2015 that First Appeal No. 281 of 2017 3 vehicle met with an accident on 30.12.2015. Sh. Shingara Singh, Surveyor & Loss Assessor was appointed for spot survey and thereafter, Kuldeep Singh, Surveyor and Loss Assessor was appointed for final survey, who submitted his report on 15.2.2016 and thereafter, Sh. Nirmal Singh, Investigator. However, the complainant failed to produce the permit covering the date of accident. Permit was issued by the Authority from 4.1.2016 to 3.1.2021, therefore, the complainant drove the vehicle without any permit. Therefore, he was not entitled to any claim, which was rightly repudiated and no deficiency in service on the part of Op. On merits, issuance of the policy was admitted. Claim from the complainant was received with regard to accident of his vehicle but it was repudiated for want of permit on the date of accident, therefore, there was no deficiency in service on the part of Ops. Complaint is without merit, it be dismissed.
4. Before the District Forum, the parties were allowed to lead their respective evidence.
5. In support of his allegations, the complainant had tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex. C-1 and documents Exs. C-2 to C-14. On the other hand, Ops had tendered into evidence affidavit of Surinderpal Sharma, Sr. Divn. Manager Ex. OP-A and documents Exs. Op-1 to Op-11.
6. After going through the allegations in the complaint, written version filed by the Ops, evidence and documents brought on the record, the complaint was dismissed. First Appeal No. 281 of 2017 4
7. Aggrieved with the order passed by the learned District Forum, the appellant/complainant has filed the present appeal.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record.
9. It was argued by the counsel for the appellant that the vehicle met with an accident on 30.12.2015 and before that he had deposited the permit fee on 30.12.2015 at 4.05 p.m. whereas the accident had taken place on 6.20 p.m. In case the Competent Authority took some time to issue the permit then the complainant should not suffer for that. It was further argued that even if for the sake of arguments, it is taken that on the date of accident, the complainant was not having a valid permit then the claim should not be rejected in toto. It should be decided on non-standard basis. Whereas counsel for the Ops stated that the District Forum was justified and relied upon the judgment referred by the District Forum that "United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Jarnail Singh", IV (2016) CPJ 360 (NC) that in case no permit, no claim.
10. But the counsel for the complainant has referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in Civil Appeal No. 2703 of 2010 "Amalendu Sahoo Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.", decided on 25.3.2010 wherein it was held in paras No. 12 to 15 as follows:-
"12. Reference in this case may be made to the decision of National Commission rendered in the case of United India Insurance Company Limited v. Gian Singh reported in 2006 CTJ 221 (CP) (NCDRC). In that decision of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) it has been held that in a case of violation of condition of the policy as to the nature of use of the vehicle, the claim ought to be First Appeal No. 281 of 2017 5 settled on a non-standard basis. The said decision of the National Commission has been referred to by this Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Nitin Khandelwal reported in 2008 (7) SCALE 351. In paragraph 13 of the judgment, in the case of Nitin Khandelwal (supra) this Court held:-
"...The appellant Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle when the insurer has obtained comprehensive policy for the loss caused to the insurer. The respondent submitted that even assuming that there was a breach of condition of the insurance policy, the appellant Insurance Company ought to have settled the claim on non- standard basis.
13. In the case of Nitin Khandelwal (supra) the State Commission allowed 75% of the claim of the claimant on non-standard basis. The said order was upheld by the National Commission and this Court refused to interfere with the decision of the National Commission.
14. In this connection reference may be made to a decision of National Commission in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited v. Narayan Prasad Appaprasad Pathak reported in (2006) CPJ 144 (NC). In that case also the question was, whether the insurance company can repudiate the claims in a case where the vehicle carrying passengers and the driver did not have a proper driving licence and met with an accident. While granting claim on non-standard basis the National Commission set out in its judgment the guidelines issued by the insurance company about settling all such non-standard claims. The said guidelines are set out below:-
Sr. No. Description Percentage of settlement
(i) Under declaration of Deduct 3 years' difference
licensed carrying in premium from the
capacity amount of claim or deduct
25% of claim amount,
whichever is higher.
(ii) Overloading of vehicles Pay claims not exceeding
beyond licensed 75% of admissible claim.
carrying capacity
(iii) Any other breach of Pay upto 75% of
warranty/condition of admissible claim.
policy including limitation
as to use
First Appeal No. 281 of 2017 6
From a perusal of the aforesaid guidelines it is clear that one of the cases where 75% claim of the admissible claim was settled was where condition of policy including limitation as to use was breached."
11. Further it was held by the Hon'ble National Commission in "New India Assurance Co. Ltd. versus Smt. Malti Bhikhabhai Bhoya", 2013 (2) CPR 462 (NC) that if there is any breach of warranty or condition of policy including limitation as to use, the complainant is entitled to get 75% of the admissible claim on non-standard basis.
12. In case we go through the policy document Ex. C-9, the counsel for the Op has referred to the limitation as to use, which reads as under:-
"Limitation as to use The Policy covers use only under a permit within the meaning of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 or such a carriage falling under Sub-section 3 of Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Policy does not cover use FOR a) Organised racing b) Pace Making c) Reliability Trials d) Speed Testing."
In the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in which judgment of the Hon'ble National Commission has been referred wherein the claim on non-standard basis can be given even if the vehicle has been used against limitation as to use. Therefore, the claim of the complainant can be settled on non-standard basis.
13. No other point was argued.
First Appeal No. 281 of 2017 7
14. Sequel to the above, we accept the appeal and the impugned order is set-aside. The claim of the complainant is allowed on non-standard basis, in this way, the complainant is entitled to 75% of Rs. 2,48,000/- comes to Rs. 1,86,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% from the date of filing the complaint till payment and Rs. 10,000/- as lumpsum compensation and litigation expenses.
15. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
16. Order be communicated to the parties as per rules.
(GURCHARAN SINGH SARAN) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (RAJINDER KUMAR GOYAL) MEMBER September 01, 2017.
as