Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
S.M. Kantikar, Presiding Member and Dinesh Singh, Member
Sudarshan Giri —Petitioner
versus
Branch Manager, United India Insurance
Company Limited and Anr. —Respondent
Revision Petition No.67 of 2017
(Against the Order dated 10/11/2016 in Appeal No. 407/2016 of the State Commission Chhattisgarh)
Decided on 12.3.2020

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. R.K. Bhawnani, Advocate Mohd. Anis Ur Rehman, Advocate
For the Respondent No.1:Ms. Neerja Sachdeva, Advocate
For the Respondent No.2: NEMO

IMPORTANT POINT
Since vehicle was being used in absence of permit, insurance claim of burnt vehicle rightly repudiated by Insurance company.

Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 21(b) and 2(1)(g) – Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Sections 58 and 2(11) – Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 66(1) – Motor Insurance – Loss by fire – Insurance claim – Scope – Bus of appellant-complainant, was parked in a Cement Company, meanwhile incident of fire occurred, and bus was totally burnt – Vehicle was given by complainant on hire and reward basis for use of Cement Company – Therefore permit was necessary – Whether plying a vehicle without permit deserves any insurance claim? (No) – Admittedly the complainant was using the subject vehicle on hire and reward basis and it was being used without a valid permit – It was a clear violation of Section 66(1) of M.V. Act – Repudiation of claim by Insurance Company justified – Interference with declined (Paras 10 to 12)
Result: Petition dismissed.

ORDER

S.M. Kantikar, Presiding Member—This Revision Petition was dismissed in default for lack of prosecution vide Order dated 08.01.2019.

Heard M.A. No. 35 of 2019 filed by the petitioner for restoration. In the interest of justice, to provide fair opportunity to the petitioner, to settle the matter on merit, the M.A. is allowed and the Revision Petition is restored to its original number.

2. Heard on merit. Perused the record.

3. The issue involved is whether plying a vehicle without permit deserves any insurance claim.

4. Brief facts of the case are that the Complainant purchased a Tata bus for Rs 14,15,720 with the financial assistance of IndusInd Bank (hereinafter referred as OP2). The bus was insured with United India Insurance Co. Ltd. - OP1 under Passenger Carrying Commercial Vehicle Package policy effective from 13.8.2012 till 12.8.2013, the IDV was Rs 13,44,250/-. On 4.4.2013 the bus was parked in the campus of J.K Lakshmi Cement Company, wherein incident of fire occurred and the bus was totally burnt. Immediately, the OPs were informed by the complainant. The survey was conducted and surveyor submitted the report about the vehicle damages to the OP 1. Complainant submitted an insurance claim with respect to the burnt vehicle, but despite all the formalities, the OP 1 did not settle the claim for one year and 10 months. Being aggrieved by the act of OP 1 and the deficiency in service complainant filed a Consumer Complaint before the District Forum, Durg.

5. Both the OPs filed their respective written versions. The OP 1 admitted that the vehicle was insured with its co. and at the time of incident, the vehicle was given by the Complainant on Hire and Reward basis for the use of J.K. Lakshmi Cement and therefore the permit was necessary. That time complainant was not possessing valid and effective permit. It was violation of provisions of Section 66(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and also a fundamental breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The OP 2 took a ground that the complainant defaulted in the payment of loan amount.

6. On hearing both the parties and considering evidence on record, the District Forum dismissed the complaint.

7. Being aggrieved, the Complainant filed the first appeal (FA/2016/407) before the State Commission, Chhattisgarh.

8. The State Commission vide order dated 10.11.2016 dismissed the appeal with the following observation:

16. Looking to Investigation Report of the Investigator, it appears that the incident of fire took place on 04.04.2013 and the vehicle in question (bus) was burnt in fire incident.

17. The appellant (complainant) filed copy of Registration certificate Details which is marked as Annexure A-1. In the said documents the Registration Date is mentioned as 18.01.2013. According to the appellant (complainant) he purchased the vehicle bearing registration No. C.G.07-T-3775 on 13.08.2012. It appears that the vehicle in question was got registered after near about 5 months from the date of its purchase.

18. The permit of the vehicle in question has not been filed by the appellant (complainant). According to the appellant (complainant), the vehicle in question was given by him to J.K. Lakshmi Cement Company and at the time of incident the vehicle in question was parked in campus of J.K. Lakshmi Cement Company. At the time of incident the vehicle in question was in stationary condition, therefore, the permit is not required.

19. The vehicle in question was being plied by J.K. Lakshmi Cement Company on public road. The vehicle in question was insured with the respondent No.1 (O.P.No.1) under Passenger carrying Commercial Vehicle Package Policy.

20. The Assistant Public Information Officer and Regional Transport Authority, Raipur (C.G.) sent letter dated 21.03.2014 to Krishna Kumar G.R., Investigator, in which it is mentioned that no permit was insured in respect of vehicle bearing registration NoC.G.07/T-3775.

X X

27. In the Instant case, the vehicle in question was

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

IMPORTANT POINTSince vehicle was being used in absence of permit, insurance claim of burnt vehicle rightly repudiated by Insurance company.

Judicial Analysis

IMPORTANT POINT
Since vehicle was being used in absence of permit, insurance claim of burnt vehicle rightly repudiated by Insurance company.