Back
2010(3) CPR 38 (NC)
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
NEW DELHI
B.N.P. Singh, Presiding Member and S.K. Naik, Member
The Manager, The United Insurance
Co. Ltd. —Petitioner
versus
Sri B. Ugandar —Respondent
Revision Petition No. 34 of 2006
Decided on 14.4.2010
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. S.M. Tripathi, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. B. Suyodhan, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Absence of fitness certificate of transport vehicle will constitute fundamental breach of policy condition and Insurance Company would be justified in repudiation of claim for such circumstance.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 12 and 17—Insurance claim—Taxi Cab carrying eight persons as against sanctioned capacity of six persons met with accident by colliding against another vehicle—There was no fitness certificate of vehicle at the time of accident—Carriage of eight passengers against sanctioned capacity of six could not be construed as major violation or breach of conditions of policy—Transport vehicle was however required to have a fitness certificate impliedly for safety of passengers or goods.—Absence of fitness certificate was violation of statutory requirement and claim could not have been allowed—Impugned order allowing claim was liable to be set aside. (Paras 5 to 7)
B.N.P. Singh, Presiding Member—The Tata Sumo vehicle of respondent registered as Taxi Cab was insured with petitioner Corporation for a period of one year commencing from 11.11.2000. It so happened that on 12.10.2001, while vehicle was taken by one Mr R.C. Prasad on hire, it met with an accident, colliding with tanker-lorry. The accident was so severe that while six occupants died, rest two survived persons sustained injuries. Vehicle being insured with insurance Corporation, petitioner company was informed for assessment of damages. A surveyor was deputed who examined damaged vehicle, assessed damages and submitted report. Respondent too, obtained quotation for repair of vehicle and his estimate for repairs was
Rs. 5,74,500/-. Submitting quotation for repairs to insurance company, damages were claimed. However, insurance company repudiated claim which persuaded respondent to approach District Forum, for appropriate relief. Two- fold contentions were raised on behalf of petitioner Corporation, firstly that dispute being not a consumer dispute and secondly that when in question met with an accident, fitness certificate had already elapsed. Carriage of passengers on transport vehicle beyond sanctioned capacity was also taken to be a defence for dismissal of complaint. District Forum, analyzing evidence and taking into consideration pleadings of parties, negating contentions raised on behalf of petitioner Corporation, accepted claim, directing petitioner Corporation to pay a sum of Rs. 1,35,000/- to respondent along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of repudiation of claim. Litigation to cost of Rs. 4,000/- was also awarded by District Forum. All these contentions which were also raised in Appeal did not find favour with State Commission and appeal was accordingly dismissed.
2. Contentions raised before Fora below are sought to be reiterated before us holding that since vehicle in question was a taxi-cab and thus a transport vehicle, it cannot ply on public road without satisfying relevant provisions of the M.V. Act, 1988, as for permit, fitness and registration of vehicle. State Commission did not find flaw with complaint, holding respondent to be a ‘consumer’ assigning sound reasonings. While referring to provision of Section 56(1) of the M.V. Act, 1988 which are in following terms, Ld. Counsel for petitioner company would state that since vehicle was plying on a public road without certificate of fitness, by legal fiction, vehicle be deemed to be without valid registration.
“56. Certificate of fitness of transport vehicles:
(1) Subject to the provisions of Sections 59 and 60, a transport vehicle shall not be deemed to be validly registered for the purposes of section 39, unless it carries a certificate of fitness in such form containing such particulars and information as may be prescribed by the Central Government, issued by the prescribed authority to the effect that the vehicle complies for the time being with all the requirements of this Act and the rules made thereunder.”
3. True it is that significance of holding a valid fitness, certificate to ply vehicle on public road has been reiterated in provisions of Section 84 of M.V. Act, 1988 which requires that vehicle permit and valid certificate of fitness u/s 56 of M.V. Act is required to be maintained so as to comply with requirements of this Act and rules made thereunder. We are not oblivious of provisions of Section 66 also which enjoins that no owner of a motor vehicle shall use or permit use of vehicle as a transport vehicle in public place whether or not such vehicle is actually carrying any passenger or goods save in accordance with conditions of a permit granted or countersigned by a Regional or State Transport Authority or any prescribed authority.
4. We have referred these provision of the Act, as for rejection of claim, provision of these Sections have been taken as a defence. Carriage of passengers beyond sanctioned capacity was also a defence for rej
