NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. VINEET AGGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed against order dated 24.3.2006 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum -II, U.T., Chandigarh in complaint case No. 740 of 2004. The contextual facts in brief are as under :

(2.) IN the written statement on behalf of the OP - National Insurance Company Limited, the preliminary objections taken is that OP having considered all the facts on record, took a bona fide decision which cannot be challenged in the Consumer Forum as the matter was referred to Insurance Ombudsman who upheld the decision of the OP, hence, the complaint is not maintainable before the Forum. The complainant since failed to submit the requisite permission of transport authorities with proper endorsement on the Registration Certificate for use of LPG kit, consequent to which the claim was repudiated and the complainant was informed accordingly. Further it is contended that the complaint is not maintainable in view of the fact that complicated questions of law and facts are involved which cannot be decided under the summary procedure of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

(3.) IN reply on merits, the para No. 1 is admitted to the extent of taking the policy in question for the period from 5.4.2002 to 4.4.2003. It is contended that since the parties are bound by the terms and conditions as contained in the policy document brought on record (Annexure R -1). The complainant being guilty of violation of the same, cannot allege any deficiency on the part of OP. The complainant intentionally has not produced the original insurance policy. The factum of the vehicle in question having met with an accident and the report of spot surveyor Sh. Gopal Krishan and Sh. R.S. Arora , Surveyor for the assessment of the loss was submitted and it was pointed out that the vehicle was fitted with LPG equipment. The complainant was asked to submit a copy of the registration certificate on which endorsement regarding use of LPG fuel was permitted. The OP was informed vide letter dated 13.11.2002 from the complainant which was considered and on that ground it was decided that the claim could not paid due to clear violation of terms and conditions of policy and also of the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act. It is further contended that the complainant has misrepresented and tried to conceal the material facts as the car was being run by the LPG at the time of accident. The allegations of deficiency have been denied as the vehicle in question was having LPG equipment at the time of accident. Hence, complainant is not entitled to Rs. 49,525.32 as claimed. It is stated that the claim is not payable and prayer has been made to dismiss the complaint with costs.