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-standard basis.

JUDGMENT :

Chowdhary, J.

1. This appeal, under Section 17 of the J&K State Consumers Protection Act (as was then applicable), has been preferred by the Appellant-Insurance Company against the award dated 6th of December, 2018 passed by the erstwhile J&K State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) Srinagar (for short “the Commission”) in a complaint No. 57/2018, titled ‘Ruhail Manzoor Gunna v. National Insurance Company Limited’, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.4.50 lacs, along with interest @ 10 % per annum from the date of complaint, besides litigation costs of Rs.20,000/- were awarded in favour of the complainant/ Respondent herein.

2. The brief facts of the case, as these emerge from the perusal of the pleadings on record, are that the complainant/ Respondent herein as owner of vehicle (Tata 407M-2014 Goods Carriage) bearing Registration No. JK01W-1652, insured it with the Appellant-Insurance Company for a sum of Rs.7,06,325/-, with the validity of the insurance policy being from the 24th day of April, 2014 till 23rd of April, 2015.

2.1. The said vehicle is stated to have met with an accident at Raingi, Baramulla on 12th of January, 2015, as a result of which the vehicle suffered total damage. An intimation about the said accident and the loss suffered to the vehicle was given to the Appellant-Insurance Company, who deputed a surveyor, namely, H. S. Mehta, for assessment of the loss. The surveyor reported that the vehicle in question has suffered total loss and, accordingly, assessed the loss at Rs.4,59,000/-. However, the Appellant-Insurance Company did not settle the aforesaid claim/ loss of the Respondent herein.

2.2. The Respondent filed a complaint before the Commission, thereby claiming a sum of Rs.7,06,325/-, as principal amount, on account of the loss suffered with interest @ 12 % per annum from the date of loss till the date of final payment. Besides, he also claimed a sum of Rs.2.00 lacs for the unreasonable delay caused in the settlement of the claim and for the mental agonies suffered due to the deficient services of the Insurance Company, coupled with a sum of Rs.2.00 lacs as compensation for the unfair trade practices adopted by the Appellant-Insurance Company and Rs.1.00 lacs as litigation expenses.

3. The Appellant-Insurance Company is claimed to have filed a Written Statement before the Commission, wherein the only objection taken in opposition to the claim was that the vehicle of the complainant did not carry a valid permit on the date of accident and, therefore, the complainant could not be compensated by the Company, inasmuch as the vehicle was being plied in violation of one of the fundamental conditions of the policy of insurance, as such, the claim was repudiated.

4. The Commission, after hearing the Counsel for the parties, passed an award on 6th of December, 2018, whereby the Appellant-Insurance Company has been directed to pay an amount of Rs.4.50 lacs to the Respondent, along with interest @ 10% from the date of complaint as well as litigation costs to the tune of Rs.20,000/-.

5. The impugned award has been assailed by the Appellant-Insurance Company, inter alia, on the following grounds:

“a. That, admittedly, the vehicle in question at the time of accident was being plied without having the Route Permit. The Commission has allowed the complaint on the ground that the Respondent has deposited the requisite fee and it was for the RTO to issue the Permit and as such the objections raised by the Appellant regarding Route Permit is not sustainable. The Commission did not consider the admitted fact that the Vehicle was driven without Route Permit. The record reveals that the Vehicle had been registered on 22.07.2014 Communication dated 01.12.2015 issued by ARTO Kashmir to the Insured annexed by the Company with their written version reveal that the Insured had deposited permit fee vide GR No.7209909 dated 14.07.2014 but till date i.e. upto the date of said communication, he has not submitted nec