Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 6595
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Justice Inder Singh Mehta, President, Mr.Partap Singh Thakur, Member, Ms.Yogita Dutta, Member
Ravi Kant – Appellant
Versus
Shri Ram General Insurance Company Limited – Respondent
First Appeal No.: SC/2/FA/20/2025
For the Appellant: Mr.Daleep Singh Kaith
For the Respondent: Mr.Jagdish Thakur
The absence of a valid permit for a transport vehicle is a fundamental breach, justifying the repudiation of the insurance claim.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 66 - Condition of valid permit for transport vehicle - Insurance claim was repudiated because vehicle was operated without permit - Court emphasized that the requirement of a permit is fundamental to the operation of a transport vehicle on public roads. (Paras 14 and 19)
(B) Consumer Protection Act - Principle of deficiency in service - The complainant's plea that he was unaware of the permit requirement was not sufficient; legal obligations must be adhered to. Findings reflect that without a permit, the insurance company is justified in repudiating the claim. (Paras 15 and 19)
Facts of the case:
The complainant's vehicle, insured for Rs.21,00,000/-, met with an accident but the claim was rejected by the insurance company based on the absence of a valid permit, constituting deficiency in service.
Findings of Court:
The appeal was dismissed. The complainant failed to provide a necessary permit for the operation of the vehicle, leading to proper rejection of the claim by the insurance company.
Issues: The main issue was whether the vehicle was lawfully operated without a permit and the consequences for the insurance coverage.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the failure to maintain a valid permit represents a fundamental breach of conditions for insurance coverage, justifying the insurer's claim repudiation.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts establishing the complainant's vehicle insurance and accident details. (Para 2 , 11 , 13) |
| 2. statutory requirements for transport vehicle permits. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 3. court's observations regarding the validity and consequences of lacking a permit. (Para 19 , 20) |
| 4. final outcome and implications of the appeal ruling. (Para 22 , 23 , 24) |
Coram Hon’ble Justice Inder Singh Mehta, President Hon’ble Mr.Partap Singh Thakur, Member Hon’ble Ms.Yogita Dutta, Member.
1 Whether approved for reporting? Yes.
For the Appellant :Mr.Daleep Singh Kaith, Advocate.
For the Respondent :Mr.Jagdish Thakur, Advocate.
Justice Inder Singh Mehta, President O R D E R Instant appeal is arising out of the order dated
19.12.2024 passed by Learned District Consumer Commission,
Shimla, in Consumer Complaint No.160/2021 titled Ravi Kant complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed.
Brief facts of Case:
2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is registered owner of vehicle bearing registration No.HP-06B- 6004, which was duly insured with the opposite party/ insurance company w.e.f. 15.10.2018 to 14.10.2019 for a sum of Rs.21,00,000/- The vehicle in question met with an accident on 18.06.2019 at place near Kupa, Village Rutrang, Tehsil Sangla, District Kinnaur. At the time of accident, the vehicle was being driven by Driver Sh.Dal Bahadur, who died in the accident. Intimation of accident was given to police as well as insurance company, but the insurance company rejected the claim of the complainant on the ground that the complainant was not having a valid permit at the time of accident. At the time of issuing the policy in question, the insurance company never conveyed the terms and conditions of the policy, as such, the complainant was not aware that for getting the insurance of vehicle, route permit is required. Therefore, 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 on receipt of intimation of accident, the insurance company appointed a surveyor, who submitted his report and assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.20,87,411.25/-. During the survey, the complainant was asked to submit all the requisite documents, but the complainant failed to submit route permit of vehicle in question, which is violation of Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 . As such, claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party/insurance company. A prayer for dismissal of complaint was made.
4. The complainant has filed rejoinder denying the contents of the reply filed by opposite party and reiterating those of complaint.
5. Thereafter, the parties led evidence in support of their respective pleadings.
6. After hearing the parties, learned District Commission dismissed the complaint of the complainant.
7. Feeling aggrieved by the order of learned District Commission, appellant/complainant 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/complainant has submitted that vehicle of the complainant met with an accident on 18.06.2019, which was insured with the respondent/insurance company w.e.f. 15.10.2018 to 14.10.2019. He further submitted that claim of the complainant was repudiated by the insurance company on the ground that complainant was not having permit of the vehicle in question. He further submitted that appellant/complainant was not aware that what documents are required for getting insurance policy. He further submitted that insurance company never conveyed terms and conditions of the policy to the complainant. He has also relied upon the order of Hon’ble National Commission in case titled United Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Amande
