State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Shri Kewal Singh vs The National Insurance Company Limited on 22 June, 2012
BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SOLAN, H
H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SHIMLA.
First Appeal
No.158/2011
Date
of Decision: 22.06.2012
Shri Kewal Singh son of Shri
Chatro Ram,
R/o Village Chobia, Tehsil
Bharmour,
District Chamba, H.P.
..
Appellant
Versus
The National Insurance Company
Limited,
Dalhousie Road, Pathankot, Tehsil Bharmour,
District Chamba, H.P.
Respondent
Coram
Honble Mr. Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President
Honble Mr. Chander Shekhar Sharma, Member
Honble Mrs. Prem Chauhan, Member
Whether
approved for reporting?[1]
For
the Appellant: Mr. Inder Dutt Bhardwaj, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr.
Jagdish Thakur, Advocate
O R D E R:
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) Appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 12.11.2009 of the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chamba, whereby, his complaint, under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, which he filed against the respondent, has been dismissed.
2. Appellant purchased a bus and got the same insured with the respondent for own damage for the period from 12.05.2006 to 11.05.2007. On 03.02.2007, the bus met with an accident at a place called Pansei in Bharmour Tehsil. Report was lodged with the police. Intimation of the accident was given to the respondent also. Claim was lodged with the respondent for payment of insurance money. Respondent did not settle the claim and dilly dallied the matter, on one pretext or the other. Appellant then filed a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, seeking issuance of a direction to the respondent to settle the claim and also to pay damages.
3. Respondent contested the complaint and pleaded that appellant was required to submit route permit, but he failed to do so and that was the reason for his claim having remained unsettled.
4. Learned District Forum has dismissed the complaint on the ground that the vehicle was being plied, without route permit at the time, when it met with an accident.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
6. Appellant, vide Annexure C-1 had been issued permit to ply the bus, on a particular route for limited period, subject to certain conditions and one of conditions, i.e. condition No.5, was as follows:-
5. Within two months from receipt of this letter, the Registration certificate shall be submitted in the office of the undersigned for grant of the stage carriage route permit. In case, the Registration certificate is produced after the expiry of two months but not later than three months a penalty of `2000/- be deposited.
For delay of more than three months but not more than four months a penalty of `3000/- shall be charged. The extension of grant letter after the expiry of three months will be allowed only when cogent reasons for delay in production of bus are submitted by the applicant. After the expiry of 4 months, no further extension will be allowed and the grant of permit in your favour shall be treated as cancelled, without affording any further opportunity in this regard.
7. A bare reading of the above reproduced condition shows that permit could not have remained in force, after the expiry of four months period from the date of its issue, i.e. 08.05.2006, in case the registration certificate was not submitted to the Regional Transport Authority, which granted the aforesaid permit, within the aforesaid period of four months and the conditional permit was to be treated as cancelled.
8. In the present case, admittedly, registration certificate had not been submitted upto the date of accident, i.e. 03.02.2007 and by that time, four months time from the date of issue of permit Annexure C-1 had lapsed and, thus, C-1 stood cancelled.
9. Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, prohibits the use of a motor vehicle as a transport vehicle, in any public place for carrying passengers or goods, except in-accordance with the conditions of permit granted or countersigned by a Regional or State Transport Authority or any other prescribed authority, authorizing him the use of the vehicle in that place, in a manner in which the vehicle is being used. Admittedly, the vehicle, in question, was being used as a transport vehicle at the time, when it met with an accident. Thus, it was being used in violation of Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. This violation is punishable as an offence under Section 192-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
10. It has been held by the Honble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Revision Petition No.4055 of 2010, titled New India Assurance Company Limited versus Smt. Meera Banolta, decided on 11.04.2011 that violation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, amounts to fundamental breach of law and in a case where such a breach of law is there, insurer is not liable to indemnify the insured.
11. As a result of the above stated position, appeal is dismissed.
12. One copy of this order be sent to each of the parties, free of cost, as per Rules.
(Justice Surjit Singh) President (Chander Shekhar Sharma) Member (Prem Chauhan) Member June 22, 2012 *dinesh* [1] Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order?