State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mateen Ali vs The New India Assurance Co.Ltd. on 27 January, 2017
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G.)
Appeal No.FA/2016/545
Instituted on : 26.11.2016
Mateen Ali, S/o Waris Ali, Aged 45 years,
R/o : Vyapar Vihar Road,
Near Astha Petrol Pump,
Tehsil and District Bilaspur (C.G.) ..... Appellant/Complainant
Vs.
The New India Assurance Company Limited,
Through : Divisional Manager, Divisional Office,
Rama Trade Centre, Old Bus Stand,
Bilaspur (C.G.) .... Respondent/Opposite Party
PRESENT: -
HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE SHRI D.K. PODDAR, MEMBER
HON'BLE SHRI NARENDRA GUPTA, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES :-
Shri Deepak Mishra, for the appellant.
Shri Manoj Agrawal, for the respondent.
ORDER
Dated : 27/01/2017 PER: - HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT This appeal is directed against the order dated 30.07.2016, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bilaspur (C.G). (henceforth "District Forum" for short), in Complaint Case No.CC/2014/188. By the impugned order, learned District Forum, has dismissed the complaint of the complainant.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the complaint of the complainant are that the trailer of the complainant bearing registration No.C.G.10-C-1485 was insured // 2 // with the O.P. for the period from 03.05.2014 to 02.05.2015 under Insurance Policy No.46050031140100001170 as per terms and conditions mentioned therein for all the risks. The above vehicle of the complainant met with accident on 15.05.2014 for which the complainant submitted claim form before the O.P. with bills of repairing of vehicle. After submission of the claim, the O.P. sent a letter to the complainant on 30.07.2014 mentioning that the complainant was not having fitness certificate on the date of accident and the fitness certificate was valid for the period from 22.05.2014 to 21.05.2015, whereas on the date of accident i.e. 15.05.2014, the fitness certificate was not valid, therefore, expressed its inability to pay the claim amount. The O.P. gave 7 days time to the complainant for giving explanation. The complainant gave reply of the letter of the O.P. dated 30.07.2014 through his Advocate on 04.08.2014 to the O.P. in which it was stated that prior to the date of accident, an application was submitted before the R.T.O. Bilaspur on 28.04.2014 for renewal of Certificate of Fitness and a sum of Rs.600/- towards fees was also paid. The process was completed and the fitness certificate was also prepared. The employee of the office of the R.T.O. informed the complainant that the above fitness certificate had not been provided due to election and the same was provided after counting of vote on 16.05.2014. In the fitness certificate the period is mentioned as 22.05.2014 to 21.05.2015. The complainant had already submitted application and deposited requisite fees on 28.04.2014. The complainant sent registered notice to the O.P. mentioning the above facts and demanded the compensation, but till date, the O.P. did // 3 // not settle the claim of the complainant and also did not send reply to his notice, thus, the O.P. committed deficiency in service. Due to above act of the O.P., the complainant suffered mental agony, for which the O.P. is responsible. Hence, the complainant filed instant complaint before the District Forum and prayed for granting reliefs, as mentioned in the relief clause of the complaint.
3. The O.P. filed its written statement and averred that the O.P. insured the vehicle of the complainant as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy, according to which for use of the vehicle, permit, fitness certificate and valid driving licence of the driver are required. In above condition any liability is arisen, then the O.P. is liable as per terms and conditions of the policy, otherwise, the O.P. has no liability. The complainant is having knowledge regarding it. The complainant submitted quotation bill/estimate along with claim form, but the bill which was submitted by the complainant was not final bill. The O.P. appointed Surveyor and obtained his report. The fitness certificate of vehicle of the complainant was not valid on 15.05.2014, therefore, as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy the O.P. gave intimation in this regard to the complainant and sought explanation and it was informed that otherwise within 7 days the claim would be closed as no claim. On the date of accident i.e. 15.05.2014 the fitness certificate of vehicle bearing registration No.C.G.10-C-1485 was not valid and effective, therefore, the claim of the complainant was disallowed being no claim, therefore, no // 4 // cause of action has accrued against the O.P. The Surveyor assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.26,965/- (Rupees Twenty Six Thousand Nine Hundred Sixty Five) which was payable when the terms and conditions of the policy are complied, but the complainant was using the vehicle without fitness certificate, therefore, his claim was treated no claim. The complainant is not entitled to get any reliefs from the O.P. The complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.
4. The complainant has filed documents. The documents are bill part A(1), bill part A(2), bill part B(1) dated 16.05.2014 issued by Samrat Engineering Works, Bilaspur (C.G.), receipt issued by R.T.O. Bilaspur for the fitness certificate dated 28.04.2014, Fitness Certificate of vehicle bearing registration No.C.G.10-C-1485 dated 03.05.2014, R.C. Book of vehicle bearing registration No.C.G.10-C-1485 dated 25.05.2007, goods vehicle permit dated 09.05.2011, insurance policy dated 28.04.2014, letter dated 30.07.2014 sent by the O.P. to the complainant, registered notice dated 04.08.2014 sent by Deepak Mishra, Advocate to the O.P..
5. The O.P. has also filed document which is Survey Report dated 30.06.2014 of Paritosh Singh, Surveyor & Loss Assessor.
6. Learned District Forum, after having considered the material placed before it by the parties, has dismissed the complaint by the impugned order.
// 5 //
7. Shri Deepak Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the appellant (complainant) has argued that the appellant (complainant) obtained fitness certificate in respect of vehicle trailer bearing registration No.C.G.10/C-1485, which was effective for the period from 22.05.2014 to 21.05.2015. The appellant (complainant) had applied for obtaining fitness certification and deposited the amount on 28.04.2014 before the R.T.O. Bilaspur, which was under process. The fitness certificate was ready on 03.05.2014, but it was issued on 22.05.2014. The accident took place on 15.05.2014 and at the time of accident, the appellant (complainant) had already deposited the amount to the R.T.O. Bilaspur for renewal of the fitness certificate, therefore, the respondent (O.P.) was not justified in repudiating claim of the appellant (complainant) on the basis of fitness certificate. It appears that at the time of the accident, the appellant (complainant) had already applied for renewal of fitness certificate and deposited the amount to the R.T.O. Bilaspur, therefore, due to non-availability of the fitness certificate, the claim of the appellant (complainant) cannot be repudiated by the respondent (O.P.) in toto. If the fitness certificate was not issued by the R.T.O. Bilaspur to the appellant (complainant), even then the appellant (complainant) is entitled to get compensation from the respondent (O.P.) on non-standard basis. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the District Forum, is erroneous and is liable to be set aside.
// 6 //
8. Shri Manoj Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent (O.P.) has argued that the vehicle in question is Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV) and its type of body is Multi Axle (Trailer), therefore, the fitness certificate is essential. In the instant case, the vehicle in question was being used by the appellant (complainant) without fitness certificate, which is fundamental violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy as well as provisions of Section 56 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, therefore, the finding recorded by the District Forum, is just and proper and does not call for any interference by this Commission. The appeal is liable to be dismissed.
9. We have heard learned counsels for both the parties and have also perused the record of the District Forum as well as the impugned order.
10. Sub Section (1) of Section 56 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 runs thus :-
"Section 56. Certificate of fitness of transport vehicles. - (1) Subject to the provisions of Sections 59 and 60, a transport vehicle shall not be deemed to be validly registered, for the purposes of Section 39, unless it carries a certificate of fitness in such form containing such particulars and information as may be prescribed by the Central Government, issued by the prescribed authority, or by an authorized testing station mentioned in Sub-section (2), to the effect that the vehicle complies for the time being with all the requirements of this Act and the rules made thereunder :
Provided that where the prescribed authority or the "authorized testing station" refuses to issue such certificate, it shall supply the owner of the vehicle with its reasons in writing for such refusal."
// 7 //
11. Sub Section (4) of Section 56 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 runs thus :-
"(4) The prescribed authority may for reasons to be recorded in writing cancel a certificate of fitness at any time, if satisfied that the vehicle to which it relates no longer complies with all the requirements of this Act and the rules made thereunder; and on such cancellation the certificate of registration of the vehicle and any permit granted in respect of the vehicle under Chapter V shall be deemed to be suspended until a new certificate of fitness has been obtained."
Provided that no such cancellation shall be made by the prescribed authority unless such prescribed authority holds such technical qualification as may be prescribed or where the prescribed authority does not hold such technical qualification on the basis of the report of an officer having such qualifications."
12. In Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Dharnidhar Sharma, I (2016) CPJ 136 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission has observed that "in the absence of fitness certificate, the Insurance Company, is not liable to pay compensation to the complainant and repudiation of claim by the Insurance Company is justified."
13. In the instant case, the fitness certificate of the vehicle in question was expired prior to the date of accident and the accident took place on 15.05.2014. At the time of the accident, the appellant (complainant) was not possessing fitness certificate. The appellant (complainant) has deposited the amount for renewal of fitness certificate to the R.T.O. Bilaspur on 28.04.2014 and the fitness certificate was issued on 22.05.2014. The appellant (complainant) has // 8 // filed photocopy of Certificate of Fitness. According to the appellant (complainant), the Certificate of Fitness was effective for the period from 22.05.2014 to 21.05.2015, therefore merely depositing the amount for obtaining fitness certificate with the concerned R.T.O. is not sufficient to hold that the appellant (complainant) was possessing fitness certificate at the time of accident. The appellant (complainant) was using the vehicle without fitness certificate, which is fundamental breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy as well as provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, hence the appellant (O.P.) has rightly repudiated the claim of the appellant (complainant).
14. Therefore, the impugned order dated 30.07.2016, passed by learned District Forum, is just and proper and does not suffer from any irregularity or illegality and does not call for any interference.
15. Hence, the appeal filed by the appellant (complainant) being devoid of any merits, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost of this appeal.
(Justice R.S. Sharma) (D.K. Poddar) (Narendra Gupta)
President Member Member
27/01/2017 27 /01/2017 27 /01/2017