IMPORTANT POINT
Where a car registered as taxi transport vehicle was being plied without permit, Insurer could not be held liable for damage caused to vehicle in accident.

V.K. Agarwal, President—This appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is directed against the order dated 5.01.07 in complaint No. 81/06 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rajnandgaon (hereinafter called “District Forum” for short), directing the appellant insurer to pay to the complainant respondent compensation of Rs.1,76,271 with interest @ 8 % p.a. payable from 30.12.05, besides Rs. 1,000 as cost of the complaint.

2. Indisputably, the complainant respondent is the owner of Tata Indica Car bearing registration No. CG-05-9475. The said car was comprehensively insured by the appellant insurer under policy No.190507/31/ 03/01714. The risk of the vehicle was covered, under the said policy, from 9.12.03 to 8.12.04.

3. The complainant averred that the said vehicle met with an accident on 4.12.04 at Ranchi, Bihar. The complainant informed the appellant insurer about the accident and the damage to the vehicle, upon which the appellant insurer appointed a surveyor. It was further averred that the husband of the complainant respondent preferred claim on 6.12.04 with the appellant insurer on behalf of the complainant respondent. It was further averred that an estimate for Rs.2,36,495 regarding repairs of the said vehicle was given by Kraft Service Station, Ranchi. It was also averred that the complainant had to spend, Rs. 1,500 in bringing the vehicle from the place of the accident to the repairer. The complainant further averred that she had submitted documents on 18.11.05 as required by the appellant insurer, in support of her claim. However, since the claim of the complainant was not settled by the appellant insurer despite her request by letters dated 9.1.06 and 9.3.06; and instead her claim was closed by the insurer. Hence, the complainant preferred complaint before the District Forum. She prayed that compensation of Rs.2,42,675 be awarded.

4. The complaint was resisted by the appellant insurer. It was averred that the vehicle in question was registered by RTO as taxi and thus it was not registered for private use. It was further averred that the complainant was requested by the appellant to submit route permit of the vehicle and other documents by their letters dated 13.9.05, 7.10.05 and 18.11.05. The complainant failed to furnish the documents, as above. Hence her claim was closed by the appellant-insurer. It was further averred that since the vehicle was being used in breach of law inasmuch as though it was registered as taxi, it was being plied without permit; hence, no claim was payable to the complainant. It was, therefore, averred that the complaint deserved to be dismissed.

5. District Forum in the impugned order observed, that the appellant insurer without justification refused to make payment and closed the complainant’s claim. It was therefore, held that there was deficiency in service by the appellant-insurer in not making payment as claimed by the complainant-respondent. The District Forum directed that a sum of Rs.1,76,271, as assessed by the surveyor, be paid to the complainant respondent. The sum as above, was awarded with interest and cost of the complaint, as mentioned above.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record.

7. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant-insurer was that the vehicle was purchased by the complainant in taxi quota. However, the vehicle was being plied without obtaining any route permit or fitness certificate. The said documents were not produced by the complainant on being demanded by the appellant insurer. Thus the said vehicle was being plied in violation of the provisions of law. The policy condition stipulating that the vehicle will be plied only as per provisions of law, was violated. Consequently, the complainant was not entitled to any claim, under the policy issued by the appellant-insurer.

8. It has, therefore, to be considered, as to whether the complainant-respondent has committed violation of provis