IMPORTANT POINT
No vehicle can be plied in violation in terms and conditions of insurance policy as also violation of provisions of M. V. Act, 1988.

Mrs. Rekha Gupta, Member—Revision petition no. 2600 of 2014 has been filed against the order dated 07.04.2014 of the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (‘the State Commission’) in Appeal no. 822 of 2012.

2. The brief facts of the case as per the respondent/ complainant are that the respondent an educated unemployed youth, for his bread and butter, on 20.11.2009 purchased a jeep for Rs.5,32,500/- from M/s Xylo Motors on loan from Mahindra and Mahindra and Com. The said vehicle was purchased by the respondent to ply it as a taxi. After finalization of purchase deal, the seller of the vehicle, i.e., M/s Xylo Motors issued a temporary registration certificate no. RJ 07 TA 122376 which was valid for one month and the petitioner insurance company issued a policy for comprehensive risk for the period from 20.11.2009 to 19.11.2010.

3. On 29.11.2009, the respondent went to village Bidasar from his village Tehandesar in a marriage party and on 30.11.2009 in the morning at 05.00 a m when the respondent was coming back to his village and on Bidasaw Sandwa road near village Sandwa Bhatlai suddenly a cow appeared before the vehicle and the vehicle got imbalanced, overturned and damaged. Respondent’s vehicle was being driven by Kishna Ram who possessed the driving licence to drive such type of vehicle. Due to this accident the respondent and his driver sustained minor injuries but the vehicle was totally damaged.

4. Immediately after the accident, intimation was given to the Insurance Company, Branch Office at Bikaner. On receipt of intimation, surveyor came from the Branch Office and took the necessary photographs of the vehicle and visited the spot of accident and noted down the damages and advised the respondent to shift the vehicle to the authorized showroom – M/s Bikaner Motors and also asked to prepare the complete estimate for repairing the vehicle in the presence of authorized official of the insurance company.

5. After the accident of the vehicle on 04.12.2009 the estimate of the damaged vehicle was prepared in the presence of insurance officer and estimate of Rs.5,75,034/- was prepared by the Bikaner Motors and the same was sent to the petitioner – insurance company and the respondent was advised to contact the office of insurance company. The respondent contacted the Divisional and Branch Office of the company at Bikaner and an assurance was given to the respondent that his claim will be settled within one week.

6. On 14.12.2009, the respondent visited the Branch Office of the petitioner – insurance company and asked about the repairing of the vehicle and the officer sitting there told that the vehicle was totally damaged and not repairable. The cost of the vehicle was Rs.5,32,500/- and the estimate for repairing the vehicle was Rs.5,75,034/- hence, this was a case of total loss and claim file had been sent to Regional Office at Jaipur for necessary advise and directions and whenever they received the guidelines the same would be communicated to him over phone. Even after one month of the accident, the insurance company did not give any information to the respondent. The vehicle of the respondent was lying at Bikaner Motors in a damaged condition.

7. The authorized person of Bikaner Motors informed the respondent over phone that his vehicle was lying in the workshop in a damaged condition for the past one month and Rs.100/- per day were being charged for it. Hence, requested him to get the vehicle repaired at his own expenses or remove the vehicle from the workshop. After receipt of this information, the respondent again visited the office of insurance company and the officer informed him that they had not received any guidelines from the Regional Office, hence, he would have to wait and in this assurance five to six months elapsed. Aggrieved by the attitude of the insurance company, the respondent served a legal notice dated 14.04.2010 to the petitioner through his advocate asking for payment of loss of