National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Pal Singh vs The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. on 30 July, 2012
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 1911 OF 2011 (From the order dated 01.03.2011 in Appeal No.1841/08 of Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula) Pal Singh S/o Sh. Ganda Singh R/o Village Sacrahion P.O. Matheri Sekhon Tehsil & District Ambala Petitioners Vs The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Regional Office, LIC Building, IInd Floor Jagadhari Road Ambala Cantt. Through Shri R.K.P. Rajpal Chief Regional Manager Respondent BEFORE: HONBLE MR. ANUPAM DASGUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE MR. SURESH CHANDRA, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Arun Bansal, Advocate Pronounced on:_3rd July, 2012 ORDER
PER SURESH CHANDRA, MEMBER The main issue which has arisen for our consideration in this revision petition is as to what the impact is of not holding a valid route permit at the time of the alleged accident on the claim for payment of insured benefits.
2. Briefly stated, the petitioner who is original complainant in this case had insured his vehicle, a canter (truck) bearing Regn. No.HR-37-8186 with the respondent for the period from 01.07.2003 to 30.06.2004. This vehicle met with an accident on 25.12.2003. Necessary information was sent to the Insurance Company which appointed the investigator who inspected the vehicle. The petitioner submitted a claim of Rs.80,000/- to the Insurance Company on account of the repairs of the vehicle. This claim was, however, rejected by the respondent vide letter dated 27.02.2006 on the ground that at the time of accident the petitioner was not holding a valid route permit.
Challenging the repudiation of his claim, the petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ambala which vide its order dated 29.8.2008 accepted the complaint and granted the following relief:
The present complaint is accepted and the OP is directed to comply with the following directions within 30 days from the receipt of this order otherwise it shall carry interest @ 6% p.a. w.e.f. 11.04.2007 till its payment:
i) To pay Rs.56,185/- to the complainant towards loss; and
ii) To pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for harassment as well as litigation charges.
3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the District Forum, the OP Insurance Company went in appeal before the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, the State Commission). It was contended on behalf of the Insurance Company that at the time of the alleged accident, the petitioner was not having a valid route permit and violated the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy and, therefore, is not entitled to have any insurable benefits in view of the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of Suraj Mal Ram Niwas Oil Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr. 2011 CTJ 11 (SC) (CP).
4. Following the ratio of the aforesaid case decided by the Apex Court and also relying on the orders of the National Commission in the cases of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Dharam Raj IV (2005) CPJ 117 and United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Vs. Trilok Kaushik IV (2010) CPJ 321, the State Commission held that since the petitioner was not holding a valid route permit at the time of alleged accident, he was not entitled to any insurable benefits. The State Commission, vide its impugned order dated 01.03.2011, therefore, accepted the appeal of the Insurance Company and set aside the order of the District Forum. In these circumstances, the petitioner has now filed this revision petition challenging the impugned order.
5. We have heard Mr. Arun Bansal, learned Counsel for the petitioner. It is not disputed by learned Counsel for the petitioner that to hold the valid route permit, necessary fee for the period had not been paid on this route permit.
In view of this, the route permit could not be regarded as a valid permit in force on the day of the accident. This being the factual position, no fault could be found with the impugned order passed by the State Commission. While dismissing the complaint, the State Commission has followed the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Suraj Mal Ram Niwas Oil Mills (P) Ltd. (supra) and in a few other cases referred to in the impugned order.
We agree with the view taken by the State Commission and do not see any reason to interfere with it. Revision petition stands dismissed in limine with no order as to costs.
....Sd/-.
(ANUPAM DASGUPTA) PRESIDING MEMBER .Sd/-.
(SURESH CHANDRA) MEMBER k