Plying a vehicle in a geographical area without a valid route permit constitutes a fundamental breach of the insurance policy, thereby absolving the insurer of liability and rendering claims ineligible for settlement even on a non-standard basis.

First Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the order dated 20.06.2024 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ferozepur in CC No.162 of 2022.

SIMARJOT KAUR, MEMBER :

The Appellants/Opposite Parties have filed the present Appeal to challenge the impugned order dated 20.06.2024 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ferozepur (in short, “the District Commission”), whereby the Complaint filed by the Complainant had been partly allowed.

2. It would be apposite to mention here that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as were arrayed before the District Commission.

3. Briefly, the facts of the case as made out by the Complainant in the Complaint filed before the District Commission are that The Complainant got his vehicle bearing No.PB-05AL-6417 Mahindra Marazo insured with the OPs vide policy bearing No.1119823119P105305550. It was valid w.e.f. 24.07.2019 to 23.07.2020. It was a comprehensive policy. He had regularly paid premium for an amount of Rs.31,631/-. Unfortunately, the vehicle of the Complainant had met with an accident on 24.06.2020 at 3.15 am at Sharda Canal Bridge, Near Mabai Chowk, U.P. During the said incident the driver of the vehicle had lost its control and fell into the canal resulting into death of one Amit Kumar, Senior D.M. Railway Headquarter. G.D.R No.18 dated 24.06.2020 was recorded in the Police Station, Mabai, which was later on converted into FIR No.298 dated 06.07.2020. The incident was reported to OP No.2 as well. Thereafter, the OP had appointed Surveyor. One Surveyor-Baldev Kumar Saluja had written a letter to the Complainant and he had replied to the same. The claim of the Complainant was approved by the OPs for an amount of Rs.6,55,000/- on net of salvage basis. The complainant was asked to furnish an affidavit for settlement of the claim, which was duly executed and supplied to the OPs on 19.7.2021. It was averred that the claim of the Complainant was wrongly processed on net of salvage basis as it was completely damaged. Later his claim was repudiated on the grounds that there was no route permit for the said vehicle to ply in the State of U.P. Besides, FIR No.298 dated 06.07.2020 was cancelled. The Complainant himself had supplied the same to the OPs. The ground for rejection of the claim were wrong and illegal as during the outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic, the government of India vide letter dated 24.8.2020 had exempted the obtaining of Motor Vehicle documents/renewed. Hence, there was a ‘deficiency in service’ on the part of the OPs. Resultantly, the Complaint was filed by the Complainant with the prayer to issue following directions to the OPs:-

i. To pay an amount of Rs.9,21,000/- as sum insured.

ii. To pay interest @ 12% from the date, leaving period of six months for settlement of the claim as ordered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, till the date of actual payment.

iii. To pay an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for causing harassment, mental agony and financial loss.

iv. To pay an amount of Rs.35,000/- as litigation expenses.

4. Upon issuance of notice, the OPs had appeared and filed their written version by raising certain preliminary objections. It was mentioned in the reply that the complaint was false, frivolous and vexatious. Complicated questions of law and facts were involved in the Complaint. Insurance is a bilateral contract between the insured and the insurer and the terms and conditions are always supplied