Back
HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SHIMLA
Inder Singh Mehta, President and Partap Singh Thakur, Member and Yogita Dutta, Member
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. – Appellant
versus
Pawan Kumar – Respondent
First Appeal No.232 of 2023
Decided on 12.8.2025
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 19 [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 48] – Insurance – Damage to Truck in accident – Claim of complainant repudiated by Insurance Company on the ground that at the time of accident, complainant was not having valid permit of vehicle – District Consumer Commission directed to pay sum of Rs. 4,99,000 to complainant alongwith 9% interest, compensation of Rs.40,000/- besides litigation costs of Rs. 15,000/- – It is proved on record that at the time of accident, transfer of permit was in process and previous permit was valid – Insurance company cannot escape from its liability by saying that there was not valid permit of vehicle in question at the time of accident – As such, Insurance Company has wrongly repudiated claim of complainant which is deficiency in service on its part – Surveyor has assessed loss caused to vehicle in question to the tune of Rs. 4,00,000 on net of salvage basis, but District Commission has awarded Rs. 4,99,000 to complainant – Report submitted by Surveyor cannot be discarded without any reasonable cause – Complainant is only entitled to amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- as assessed by Surveyor – Impugned order passed by District Commission modified to the extent that complainant is entitled for a sum of Rs. 4,00,000 alongwith 9% interest – Remaining order of District Commission upheld. (Paras 23, 24 and 26)
Result: Appeal partly allowed.
ORDER
Inder Singh Mehta, President.—Instant appeal is arising out of the order dated 25.07.2023 passed by Learned District Consumer Commission, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P. in Consumer Complaint No. 12/2022 titled Pawan Kumar v. The New India Assurance Company Ltd., whereby complaint filed by the complainant was allowed and opposite party/Insurance company was directed to pay a sum of Rs.4,99,000 to the complainant alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of complaint i.e. 25.07.2020 till its realization. The opposite party/insurance company was also directed to pay compensation to the complainant to the tune of Rs.40,000 besides litigation costs of Rs.15,000.
Brief facts of Case:
2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant is registered owner of vehicle Truck (Goods and carrier) bearing No. HP-55A-1185 which was insured with the opposite party/insurance company w.e.f. 24.06.2019 to 10.02.2020. On 10.12.2019, the vehicle in question met with an accident at place near Bhali, District Kangra, H.P. At the time of the accident, driver Shankar Lal was driving the vehicle in question, who was having valid driving. Intimation of accident was given to the insurance company who appointed Sh. Kamlesh Kumar Chadha to investigate and assess the loss caused to the vehicle in question. The surveyor assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.4,00,000 which was accepted by the complainant by giving his consent vide affidavit, but later on claim of the complainant was repudiated by the insurance company on the ground that at the time of accident, the complainant was not having valid permit of vehicle in question. There is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party/insurance company. Hence, the present complaint.
3. The opposite party/insurance company filed reply to the complaint and stated that during the process of claim, the complainant supplied copy of permit of the vehicle in question and after verifying the same from RTA Dharamshala, it was transpired that route permit of the vehicle in question was valid and effective from 03.01.2020 to 02.01.2025 only, whereas, the accident took place on 10.12.2019, as such, the permit of the vehicle in question was not valid and effective on the date of accident. A prayer for dismissal of complaint was made.
4. Complainant filed rejoinder denying the contents of reply filed by the opposite party and reiterating those of complaint.
5. Thereafter, the parties led evidence in support of their respective pleadings.
6. After hearing learned Counsel of the parties, learned District Commission allowed the complaint of the complainant.
7. Feeling aggrieved by the order of learned District Commission, the appellant/insurance company has preferred the instant appeal before this Commission.
8. Arguments heard on behalf of the parties and perused the record of the case carefully.
9. Learned Counsel of the appellant/insurance company has submitted that initially Smt. Pinki was owner of the truck in question and later on she sold the said truck to complainant Pawan Kumar. The vehicle in question met with an accident on 10.12.2019. The insurance company repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that at the time of accident, the vehicle was being plied without permit. He further submitted that accident took place on 10.12.2019 and the permit submitted by the complainant was valid w.e.f. 03.01.2020 to 02.01.2025, therefore, at the time of accident the complainant was not having permit which is violation of terms and conditions of the policy in question. He has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled Amrit Paul Singh & Ors. v. TATA AIG General Insurance CO. Ltd., IV (2018) SLT 9-Civil Appeal No. 2253 of 2018 dated 17.05.2018 and orders of Hon’ble National Commission in case titled Jasdev Singh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., Revision Petition No. 274 of 2013, case titled United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Gian Singh, First Appeal No. 274 of 1997 dated 23.12.2005 ca
Report submitted by Surveyor cannot be discarded without any reasonable cause.
The absence of a route permit did not entitle the insurance company to repudiate the claim in its entirety, and the claim could be settled at 75% of the assessed damage to the vehicle on a non-standa....
Insurable interest must exist at the time of the accident for insurance claims, and mere transfer of ownership does not invalidate entitlement if proper documentation is maintained.
Permit renewals under Section 81 of the Motor Vehicles Act are retroactively effective, impacting liability determinations in accident claims.
(1) Registered Owner - The complainant has rightly been held entitled to the claim, being the registered owner of the vehicle as the Registration Certificate and Insurance Policy were still in his na....
(1) Start of the 14-Day Grace Period – Under Section 157(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the statutory 14-day window for a new vehicle owner to transfer the existing insurance policy begins on the date....
The absence of a valid permit for a vehicle involved in an accident absolves the Insurance Company from liability for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
