ORDER

R.S. Mongia, President - This is an appeal by the complainant against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar dated February 19, 2007 by which his complaint has been dismissed.

2. Brief facts are that the complainant Jaswant Singh was the owner of a mini truck and got the same insured with the respondent National Insurance Company Ltd. for a period of one year commencing 10.12.2004. On 17.4.2005 the insured vehicle was being driven by Sukhwinder Singh @ Sony, driver of the complainant. After loading goods from Trimurti Goods Transport Company it was coming from Panipat to Amritsar. When the truck reached in the godown of Trimurti Goods Transport Company, Golden Avenue, G.T. Road, Amritsar for unloading the goods and while it was in stationary condition, there was allegedly some short-circuiting in the said truck or some burning article had fallen on the truck, due to which the truck caught fire and it was totally damaged. Fire Brigade was immediately called to control the fire but it could not save the truck. Municipal Corporation Fire Services, Amritsar issued a certificate to the complainant that the truck had caught fire. On the same day, DDR No. 35 was lodged with Police Station A Division, Amritsar and intimation was also sent to the Insurance Company on the same day. The Insurance Company deputed a Surveyor from Jalandhar to assess the loss. According to the complainant, the Surveyor had assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 4,38,500. The report was submitted by the Surveyor to the Insurance Company on 23.6.2005. The Insurance Company repudiated the claim on the ground that the truck did not have the permit to ply it on Panipat-Amritsar route. A complaint was filed by the complainant, which has been dismissed by the District Forum primarily on the ground that there was no route permit to ply the vehicle in question in the State of Punjab and, as per the circular of the Insurance Company dated 17.11.2005, the Insurance Company had rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant.

3. At the outset we may observe that so far as the circular of the Insurance Company is concerned, that came much later than the date on which the accident took place. The accident took place on 17.4.2005 whereas the circular is dated 17.11.2005. Be that as it may, learned Counsel for the Insurance Company cited a judgment of the Apex Court, which is reported as National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Challa Bharathamma and Ors., 2004 ACJ 2094 (SC), which is a two-Judge Bench. In that case, the facts were that an auto-rickshaw met with an accident resulting in death of two persons whereas third person had sustained injuries. The insured had not obtained permit to ply the vehicle. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it was held by the Apex Court that the Insurance Company was not liable. However, the Insurance Company was directed to deposit the amount and recover the same from the insured by initiating proceedings before the Executing Court; it need not file a separate suit.

4. On the other hand, there are other judgments of the Apex Court. One of them is a judgment rendered by two-Judge Bench in B.V. Nagaraju v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 1996 (2) CPC 1, in which the facts were that the truck, which was insured with the Insurance Company, met with an accident as a tanker had dashed against it. Claim was denied by the Insurance Company on the ground that the vehicle was carrying passengers unauthorizedly at the time of accident and since there was violation of the terms of the insurance policy, i.e. vehicle was being driven in accordance with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, the claim was not payable and it was stated that the same was rightly repudiated. The Apex Court took the view that exclusion terms of the policy must be read down so as to serve the main purpose of the policy and it was held that under such circumstances the insured must be indemnified. In para 8 of the judgment the Apex Court observe