2 Annexure Py PAGE-94 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM BST TRIPURA : AGARTALA B NO. C.C. 75 OF 2 Sri Ranjit Goswami. Complainant, + Versus, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Opposite Parcy In the maiter of Examination-in-chief on behalf of the 0.°. India Assurance Co. Lid. under Order XVII. Rule 4 2 11) of the Code of Civil Procedure by way of affidav! i as OPW. ot obey : ye? AFFIDAVIT 1, Sri Suman Das, S/o.Sri Satish VA Soe? yt Catdministrative Officer of oo pv" go’ Agartala Division, 4, Mantribari Road. Agartala, P.S. Wes: Ze New India Assurance Co. Agartala, District. West Tripura, aged about 27 years. bs profession-Service, by caste-Hindu, a citizen of India, do hereby solemnly affirm and say on oath as follows: 1. That, Iam the Adminiswative Officer of the New Indie ssuvance Co, Lid. and well conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case as gathered from the o'ficis:PAGE-IE records and duly authorized to sign and swear this affidavit on behalf of the O.P. Insurance Co. .. This is true to my Imowledge. 2. That, the statement made in para-1 of the complaint petition are partly admitted that the Insurance Policy was issued against the Bus bearing no. TR-07-1201 and the vehicle had valid registration, route permit, driving licence, tax token etc" But the statement that the vehicle had v id ied. After fitness at the time of accident are not adi proper verification, it was found that the vehicle had no valid fitness at the time of accident and the owner of the vehicle i.e. the complainant did not submit the valid fimess certificate, .. This is true to my knowledge. 3. That, it is admitted that the vehicle of the complainant met with an accident on 22.01.2017 and accordingly a police case was registered. It is also admitted that the complainant intimated the matter of accident to the Insurance Company by a letter dated 25.01.2017. true to my knowledge.. iG _ pepe 6 4. That, the statement made in para-4 of the complaint petition are partly admitted that the complainant submited some vehicular documents. But it is, nor admitted that the complainant submitted the valid fness 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 valid fitness certificate though the Insurance Company by a letter dated 27.01.2017 requested the complainant to submit all the required documents inchiding the fitness certificate of the vehicle. This is rue to my knowledge. 5, That, it is submitted that getting no response for submission of the fitness certificate of the vehicle, the Insurance Company by a letter dared 06.07.2017 again requested the complainant to submit the fitness certificate as early as possible to settle the claim, but the complainant did not submit the valid fines certificate, ‘The Insurance Company by a letter dated 01.08.2017 requested the Transport Officer, Sepahijala to furnish theinformation about the fimess of the vehicle bearing no. TR- 01-1201 under RIV Act whether the vehicle had valid fitness on 22.01.2017. In seply, the District Transport Officer by @ leer dared 13.09.2017 intimatea the Sr. Divisional Maneger of the O.P. Insurance Company that the fimess 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 fimess 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 fimess on 22.01.2017. In reply, the District Transport Officer, Bishramganj, Sepahijala by ¢ jevter dated 27.11.2027 informed the Insurance Company that as per Rule 62 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules. 1989 the validity of a fimess certificate is one year. So, as per the said rule if the fimess certificate was valid upto 28.08.2018, then it can be safely said that the mess, ailise contiigate wag isdued on 29.98 se bie foie ite__ Page was not valid on the date of accident occurred on 22.01.2017. .. This is rue to my knowledge. 6. That, as per Form No.24 and the letter of the DTO. the fitness certificate was valid upto 28.05.2018, but owhere mentioned the date of isu. As per informasion 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 accicient. _. This is true to my knowledge. ‘That, it is submitted that in every occasions the complainant was asked to submit the valid fitness certificate, otherwise the claim could not be settled. ... This is true to my knowledge. 8. That, it is admitred that the Insurance Company by 2 lener dated 07-12.2017 rejected the claim of the complainant without the fitness certificate of the vehicle After receiving the claim form the Insurance eyor who submitted the report Company appointed su regarding the loss as assessed amounting to Rs.2,05,862/-So, the claim of the complainant of Rs.3,61,706/- and Rs.i,00,000/- as cost are not admitted and as such strongly denied. .. This is true to my knowledge. 9. ‘That, it is admitced that the complainant issued an 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 fimess certificate and thereafter filed the instant case illegally without any basis of law which cannot be considered by this Ld. Forum. .. This is true to my Imowledge. 10. That, the Insurance Company rejected the claim illegally and the complainant is entitled to get compensation are not admitted and denied and hence the claim of the complainant is not only illegal, but also violation of the policy condition as well as M.V. “+... This is rue to my knowledge.we 11. 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 .. This is true to my knowledge. 12, That, 1 have submitted some original documents which may be marked as exhibits, In acknowledgement whereof I have signed this affidavit before the Notary Public at Agartala this the day of February, 2020. Deponent is identified by me Deponent AdvocatePAGE LOL A PORM FOR RECORDING DEPOSITION Inthe court of + President. ‘piouict Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Tripura, Agartala, 2 id Present + Sri Ruhidlas Pal, President, 08 Dr. (Smt) Bindu Pal, Member. : , 255,00 ap nereyatanee case No co. 78/2019, ee Deposition of witness No, O.P:W.No.-1 for the recorded on oath os solemn affirmation under provision of OATHS ACT, 1969 (Act, 44 of 1969] on this day of 99.12.2020 in the,...Janguage interpreted Dyseronrn Name Se Suman Das, Age-26 years, $/0.~ Sri Satish Ch: Das of Administrative Officer of New India Assurance Co. Lid. Agartala Division, 4, Mantribari Road, Agartala, p.s.-Weat Agartala, Dist-West Tripura, Occupation- Administration Officer, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Agartala. on 14/02/2020 1 have submitted my Examination-in-chief by way of Aiflievit as 0.P.W--1, On 18/11/2019, 05 documents comprising 15 sheets “ander Firisti was submitted. These documents are marked Bxihibit-A serieS- Cross examination on behalf of the Complainant. Jap ~% Tris not a fact that the averment made at Para Nos.2,9,4,6 & 9 of my exemination-in-chief are not true Surveyor report is Submitted. surveyor Report is generally prepared on the basis of the estimate submitted by Garage Owner / Workshop Owner ‘As per record the summery assessment je, the estimate gen by the Garage Owner was total Rs.3,61,706/-. eee eg eee) we ere ees lees ee) Complainant. It is not a fact that the averment made at Para No.10 is not tue: ayped to ans arevwtne ad one feao ovor and explsinea wo the deponeat wo udnulted to be Correctly writin, oy sae : Gai nape Garmt ‘Woat tr(dae pica ern ate when tie nae made ready. ae crdewrtre copy. 7 a Ti B23 I9OToey, oPore)