STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

Sh. Jasvinder Singh @ Jaswinder Singh (Aged 54 years) son of Sh. Sarwan Singh R/o Village Jalalpur, Post Office Dappar, Police Station Llalru, Tehsil Derabassi, District SAS Nagar (Mohali), Punjab.

.…..Appellant/Complainant.
 

Versus

Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Regional Office through its Regional Manager, SCO No.109-111, Sector 17D, Chandigarh.

...Respondent/Opposite Party.

BEFORE:  JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

                SH. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

Argued by:- 

Sh.  Ashwani Arora, Advocate & Sh. Devinder Kumar, Advocate for the appellant.

Sh Arjun Kundra, Advocate for the respondent.

PER RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

              The instant appeal has been filed by the complainant  - Sh. Jasvinder Singh @ Jaswinder Singh, appellant herein, against order dated 03.06.2024, rendered by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh, (hereinafter to be called as the District Commission only), vide which, his Consumer Complaint bearing No.407 of 2023 has been dismissed.

2]           The case of the appellant/complainant before the Ld. District Commission was that the appellant, registered owner of an Eicher Canter (Registration No. PB-65-AZ-6437), insured with the respondent/opposite party under a policy valid from 29.1.2023 to 28.1.2024, met with an accident on 6.3.2023 near Kanpur, UP, while trying to avoid a stray cow. The incident caused significant damage to the vehicle and a DDR (Annexure C-3) was recorded with the police. He transported the damaged vehicle to Swami Auto Care, Derabassi, paying Rs.21,500/- for transport and Rs.6,06,891/- for repairs, covering the initial costs while awaiting the insurance claim settlement. The respondent was informed of the accident on 10.3.2023 and a surveyor was assigned but the claim decision was delayed. Despite providing all necessary documents, the respondent eventually repudiated the claim on 17.7.2023 (Annexure C-8), citing issues with the vehicle’s RC fitness and the driver’s license validity for driving a transport vehicle. The complainant averred that he held a valid light motor vehicle license and had applied for a transport license with a learner’s permit since 21.9.2022 undergoing the necessary training. He claims that the respondent’s denial of the claim constituted a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

3]           On the other hand, while contesting the consumer complaint, the respondent acknowledged that the appellant insured the subject vehicle with it under policy (Annexure R-2) valid from 29.1.2023 to 28.1.2024. However, it pleated that at the time of the accident, the appellant did not possess a valid fitness certificate for the vehicle, which constituted a fundamental breach of the policy’s terms and conditions, leading to the claim’s repudiation. Additionally, the respondent pleaded that the appellant did not hold a valid driving license to operate a commercial vehicle with a laden weight of 11,990 kg, as he only had a light motor vehicle license.

1.            After hearing the Counsel for the parties and going through the evidence and record of the case, the Ld. District Commission dismissed the complaint, as stated above.
2. The order of the Ld. District Commission has been assailed by the appellant/complainant on the ground that the Ld. District Commission made an error in holding that non-holding of fitness certificate is a fundamental breach and it totally ignored the fact that there was no willful delay or lapse on the part of the appellant as he had gone to RTO, Mohali to pay the requisite fee for renewal of fitness certificate of the vehicle but the same was not accepted by the said authority as there was a challan dated 23.07.2021 reflected in the system. The appellant paid the challan fee on 20.