BAGHEL SINGH Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the complainant, Baghel Singh under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the impugned order dated 22.3.2012, passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission') in First Appeal No.1605/2007, National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Baghel Singh, vide which, while allowing appeal, the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sirsa on 21.5.2007 in Consumer Complaint No.439/2005, allowing the said complaint, was set aside.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the complainant, Baghel Singh is the registered owner of truck No.HR -46A -7454, which was the old registration number given by the Authorities in Haryana and subsequently, on 26.12.2003, the truck was registered at Hanumangarh (Rajasthan) and the registration no. became RJ -31G 5542. The said truck, which was insured with the opposite party (OP), National Insurance Company Ltd. from 18.10.2003 to 17.10.2004, met with an accident at Burdwan (West Bengal) on 29.10.2003. The report of the accident was lodged with the police and an intimation was also given to the insurance company. It is stated that some repair work for the truck was done on the spot and for the remaining repairs, it was brought to Sirsa, Haryana. The complainant lodged claim with the insurance company for payment of bills for repairs, but the claim was repudiated by the OP, vide letter dated 16.4.2004 on the ground that the fitness certificate of the truck had expired on 17.10.2003. The case of the complainant is that at the time of expiry of the fitness certificate on 17.10.2003, the truck was away from the registering authority and on returning back, the truck was produced before the District Transport Officer, Hanumangarh. The fitness certificate was issued on 5.11.2003. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the insurance company in repudiating the claim, the complainant filed the consumer complaint in question, seeking directions to the OP insurance company to pay Rs.80,000/ - for damages to the truck, Rs.25,000/ - as compensation against mental harassment and Rs.2,500/ - as litigation cost with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of accident till realization.

(3.) The complaint was resisted by the OP insurance company by filing a written reply before the District Forum in which they stated that under the Motor Vehicles Act, it was obligatory on the complainant to take the vehicle to the competent authority to obtain the fitness certificate. The insurance company was bound by the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and hence, they had rightly repudiated the claim. The OP also stated that as per the report of the surveyor, the loss was to the extent of Rs.19,906/ - against the estimated loss of Rs.60,380/ -. Moreover, the vehicle was a commercial vehicle, being used for a commercial purpose and hence, the present complaint was not maintainable under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as complainant did not fall under the category of 'consumer'. The OP stated that the complainant himself had admitted that there was no fitness certificate for the truck between the period 17.10.2003 to 5.11.2003. According to the OP, the concerned Authority in every District of any State is competent to give the fitness certificate.