: \ BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA. CASE NO. €.C. 75 OF 2019 Sri Ranjit Goswami, ...Complainant. - VERSUS - ‘The New India Assurance Co. Ltd... Opposite Party. Assurance Co. Ltd., Agartala Division. ‘The New India Assurance Company Ltd. most humbly begs to slate as follows 1, That, the instant complaint. petition is not maintainable in its present form as well as in law. 2. Thal, the complainant has no locus standi to file the instant complaint against the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., ‘Thal, as per complaint petition there is no cause of action against the New India Assurance Co. Ltd.\ ‘Thal, the instant petition of the complainant is barred by limitation and the complaint petition has not been filed within the statutory period of limitation and as such the iistant complaint petition is not maintainable. 5. That, the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. is a company who has legal and separate entity and hence the company is the necessary party. But the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. has not been made party in the case and as such the instant ©. ‘That, the statement as made in para-I of the complaint ave partly admitted that the Insurance Policy was issued against the Bus beating no. TR-07-1201 and the vehicle had valid regi ration, route permit, driving licence, tax token ete. But the slaiement that the vehicle had valid fitness at the time of accident are not admitted and hence strongly denied. Alter proper verifiention, it was found that the vehicle had no valid fitness al the time of accident and the owner of the vehicle i.e. the complainant did not submit the copy of fitness. 7. That, in reply of the statement made in para-2 of the complaint, il is admilied that the vehicle of the complainant\ met with an accident on 22.01.2017 and accordingly a police case was registered, 8. That, in reply of the contention as made in para-3 of the complaint, it is admitted that the complainant intimated the matter of accident to the Insurance Company by a letter dated 25.01.2017. ©. That, the statement as made in para-4 of the complaint petition are partly admitted that the complainant submitted some vehicular documents. But it is not admitted that the complainant submitted the fitness certificate of the vehicle at the time of accident and the repairing cost of Rs.3,61,706/- as estimated by the complainant. At the time of alleged accident the vehicle had no fitness certificate and as such the complainant could not submit the fitness certificate though the Insurance Company by a letter dated 27.01.2017 requested the complainant to submit all the required documents including fitness certificate of the vehicle. 10. ‘That, in reply of the contention as made in para-5 of the complaint petition, it is submitted that getting no response for submission of fitness certificate of the vehicle, the Insurance1 Company by a letter dated 06.07.2017 again requested to submit the fitness certificate as early as possible to settle the claim, but the complainant did not submit the valid fitness certificate. ‘The Insurance Company by a letter dated 01.08.2017 requested the Transport Office, Sepahijala to furnish the information about the fitness of the vehicle bearing no. TR- 01-1201 under RTI Act whether the vehicle had valid fitness on 22.01.2017. In reply, the District Transport Officer by a letter dated 13.09.2017 intimated the Sr. Divisional Manager of the O.P, Insurance Company that the fitness certificate of the vehicle was valid upto 28.05.2018, but did not mention the date of issue. Hence without the date of issue of the fitness certificate, the O.P. Insurance Company was not confirmed whether the vehicle had valid fitness at the time of accident. For further confirmation, the Insurance Company issued another letter to the District Transport Officer, Bishramganj, Sepahijala dated 18.10.2017 whether the vehicle had valid fitness on 22.01.2017. In reply, the District Transport Officer, Bishramganj, Sepahijala by a letter dated 27.11.2017 informed the Insurance Company that as per\ Rule 62 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 the validity of a fitness certificate is one year. So, as per the said rule if the fitness certificate is valid upto 28.05.2018, then it can be said safely that the fitness certificate was issued on 29.05.2017 considering the letter of the DTO, Bishramganj and hence the fitness certificate was not valid on the date of accident occurred on 22.01.2017. 11, That, in reply of the contention as made in para-6 of the complaint petition, it has already been stated that as per Form No.24 and letter of the DTO, the fitness was valid upto 28.05.2018, but nowhere mentioned the date of issue. As per information received from the DTO, Bishramganj as said above and as per admission of the complainant the validity of the fitness was one year and hence considering the expiry period the vehicle had no valid fitness at the time of alleged accident. 12. That, in reply of the contention as made in para-7 of the complaint petition, it is submitted that in every occasions the complainant was asked to submit the valid fitness certificate, otherwise the claim could not be settled.| j \ at 1 13. That, in reply of the contention as made in para-8 of the complaint petition, it is admitted that the Insurance Company by a letter dated 07.12.2017 rejected the claim of the complainant without the fitness certificate of the vehicle. Be it mentioned here that after receiving the claim form the Insurance Company appointed surveyor who submitted the report regarding the loss as assessed amounting to Rs.2,05,862/-. So, the claim of the complainant of Rs.3,61,706/- and Rs.1,00,000/- as cost are not admitted and as such strongly denied by the O.P. Insurance Company. 14. That, in reply of the contention as made in para-9 and 10 of the complaint petition, it is admitted that the complainant issued a Advocate notice and the O.P. Insurance ‘Company gave reply of the said notice and clearly requested the complainant to submit the valid fitness certificate to settle the claim as per procedure, but the complainant did not submit the valid fitness certificate and thereafter filed the instant case illegally without any basis of law which cannot be considered by this Ld. Forum. 15, ‘That, the statement as made in para-11 and 12 of the complainant petition that the Insurance Company rejected1 the claim illegally and the complainant is entitled to get .are not admitted and denied and compensation. + hence the claim of the complainant is not only illegal, but also violation of the policy condition as well as M.V. Act. 16. That, the statement made in para-19 of the complainant petitioner are the matter of records and the complainant should prove those statements by submitting documents. 17. That, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company and the claim of the complainant was rejected in absence of the valid fitness certificate of the vehicle and no such allegation has been brought by the complainant against the O.P. Insurance Company and hence in absence of deficiency in service the complaint petition is not maintainable as per provisions of Consumer Protection Act. So, the claim as well as complaint of the complainant is to be rejected by this Ld. Forum. 18. That, the rest would be submitted verbally at the time of hearing. In the premises, it is most humbly prayed that your honour would be kind enough to consider the written__ PAG TE 1 objection and would very kindly reject/dismiss the instant complaint petition with cost. And for this act of kindness, the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., as in duty bound, shall ever pray. VERIFICATION ‘The statements made above are true to my knowledge as gathered from the official records and in acknowledgement whereof I sign this verification on this the day of November, 2019 A. D. Affidavit follows...\ BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA. CASE Ni 75 OF 2019 Sri Ranjit Goswami. sssesseeessee-Complainant. - VERSUS - ‘The New India Assurance Co, Ltd...........Opposite Party. AFFIDAVIT 1, Sti Suman Das, S/o.Sri Satish Ch. Das, Administrative ion, 4, Officer of New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Agartala Di Mantribari Road, Agartala, P.S. West Agartala, District- West ‘Tripura, aged about years, by profession-Service, by caste- Hindu, a citizen of India, do hereby solemnly affirm and say on oath as follows :- 1. That, I am the Administrative Officer of the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and well conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case as gathered from the official records and duly authorized to sign and swear this affidavit on behalf of the OP. Insurance Co. This is true to my knowledge. 2. That, the statements made in para-6 to 17 are true to the best of my knowledge and rests are my humble submissions before this Ld. Court. In acknowledgement wheregt 1 have signed thie affdave before the Notary Public at MASE is the day of October, 2019. Deponent is identified by me Deponent Advocate1 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA. CASE NO. C.C. 75 OF 2019 Sri Ranjit Goswami... Complainant, - VERSUS - The New India Assurance Co, Ltd. Opposite Party. FIRISTI The following documents submitted by the O.P. Insurance Company.im oniginal £ ote 1. Letter of the Insurance Co. to the Complainant dated 27.01.2017 & 06.07.2017... 02 Sheets. Letter & RTI application to the SPIO dated 01.08.2017 and its reply dated 13.09.2017 by the DTO, Bishramganj along with Form 24... 04 Sheets Letter of the Insurance Company dated 18.10.2017 to the DTO, Bishramganj and its reply dated 27.11.2017 by the DTO, Bishramgan...... 02 Sheets. Certified copy of the Insurance Policy... 02 Sheets. Copy of the Surveyor Report dated 03.05.2017. 05 Sheets. + Total=~ 15 Sheets ni