Back
WEST BENGAL STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
P.K. Samanta, President and S. Coari, Member
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. - Appellant
Versus
RABINDRANATH BISWAS - Respondent
S.C. Case No. FA/295 of 2010
Decided on : 25-02-2011
Mr. A. Alam, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. P.R. Sinha Sarkar, Advocate, for the Respondent
The validity of insurance coverage and the entitlement to relief in case of an accident during the coverage period, despite the absence of a special permit, was established.
Headnote:
Insurance - Vehicle Insurance - Validity of insurance coverage and special permit - The court confirmed the decision of the District Forum, holding that the complainant was entitled to relief as the vehicle met with an accident during the subsistence of insurance coverage, despite the contention that the vehicle was plying for a different purpose without a special permit.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant's vehicle met with an accident during the insurance coverage period, incurring substantial damage. The insurance claim was not settled, leading to the consumer complaint.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complainant was entitled to relief as the accident occurred during the insurance coverage period, despite the contention that the vehicle was plying for a different purpose without a special permit.
Issues: Validity of insurance coverage, entitlement to relief, requirement of special permit
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the complainant was entitled to relief as the accident occurred during the insurance coverage period, and the existence of a special permit was substantiated by the payment of requisite fees.
Final Decision: The Appeal was dismissed, and the impugned judgment was confirmed.
ORDER
S. Coari, Member - The present Appeal has been directed against the judgment and order dated 10.5.2010 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nadia in C.F. Case No. CC/09/12 wherein the learned District Forum allowed the complaint case on contest against the OP with a direction upon the OP to pay Rs. 1,72,000 towards compensation and Rs. 3,000 towards mental harassment together with Rs. 2,000 by way of cost to the complainant. The complainant/respondent's case before the learned District Forum, in brief, was that the complainant was the owner of Bus No. WB 51-3759 with the insurance coverage from the OP/Insurance Company, which was valid from 28.10.2007 to 27.10.2008. According to the complainant, the vehicle of the complainant met with an accident on 10.5.2008 causing heavy damage to the vehicle in question. Over the accident a police case was started and due to such accident the complainant had to incur Rs. 2,00,000 towards repairing and maintenance charges. The complainant submitted claim before the Insurance Company which was not settled by the OP/Appellant and hence, the petition of complaint was filed for proper redressal.
2. The OP/Insurance Company contested the case by filing written version denying all the material allegations contained therein contending inter alia that the vehicle was plying for a purpose other than the purpose, which was mentioned in the permit of the vehicle when the accident took place. In the absence of any special permit the complainant was not entitled to any relief whatsoever and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the petition of complaint.
3. The learned District Forum while disposing of the petition of complaint has observed that the complainant was very much armed with special permit for the purpose and during the subsistence of the insurance coverage the accident took place and the complainant was very much entitled to the reliefs as prayed for and accordingly disposed of the petition of complaint in favour of the complainant as mentioned above.
4. The only moot question that revolves round the present Appeal is as to whether the learned District Forum was justified in disposing of the petition of complaint in the manner as discussed above.
5. Decision relied upon by the Appellant AIR 1973 Mad. 271, N. Pappu Reddiar and Others v. The Regional Transport Authority, Salem and Others .
Decision with reasons
6. At the time of hearing it has been submitted on behalf of the Appellant that in this case the learned District Forum has totally failed to appreciate the actual state of affairs and as such has arrived at a wrong and improper decision which is not at all sustainable under the law. According to the learned Advocate, the vehicle in question was plying for some other purpose than what it was meant for at the time when the accident took place and the complainant having utterly failed to produce any legal and valid special permit to that effect in support of his case, was never entitled to the relief as prayed for. The learned District having failed to appreciate this aspect of the case the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.
7. We have duly considered the submissions so put forward on behalf of the Appellant and have gone through the materials on record including the evidence and the impugned judgment and find that in this case the complainant/Respondent has put forward a case to the effect that during the subsistence of insurance coverage his vehicle met with an accident causing substantial damage to the vehicle in question, for which the complainant had to incur about Rs. 2,00,000 for its repair. The complainant having failed to secure the necessary claim from the Appellant was compelled to institute the consumer complaint. The OP/Appellant, on the other hand, has tried to put up a case to the effect that during the relevant period when the vehicle in question met with an accident it was plying for some special purpose and the complainant ought to have
