State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Sh. Mohd. Salim on 27 September, 2024
H. P. ST AT E CONSUMER D ISPUTES REDRESS AL
CO MMISSION SHIML A.
First Appeal No. : 172/2023
Date of Presentation : 02.08.2023
Order Reserved on : 24.09.2024
Date of Order : 27.09.2024
_____
Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Kashyap Kuteer,
1st Floor, Panthaghati, District Shimla, H.P., through its Manager
Legal, SCO 57-59, 4th Floor, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh-160017.
......Appellant/Opposite party.
Versus
Mohd. Salim S/o Rojudeen, R/o Kiran Gupta Building, Village
and P.O. Darlaghat, Tehsil Arki, District Solan, H.P.
......Respondent/Complainant.
Coram
Hon'ble Justice Inder Singh Mehta, President
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For t he Appellant :Mr.Jagdish Thakur, Advocate.
For the Respondent :Mr.Rakesh Thakur, Advocate.
Justi ce Inder Singh Mehta, Presi dent
ORDER
Instant appeal is arising out of the order dated 07.06.2023 passed by Learned District Consumer Commission, 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order?
Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Sh.Mohd Salim.
(F.A. No.172/2023) Solan, in Consumer Complaint No.82/2022 titled Mohd Salim Versus Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. whereby the complaint filed by the complainant was allowed. Brief facts of Case:
2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is registered owner of a vehicle bearing registration No.HP-11A-
6566, which was duly insured with the opposite party/ insurance company vide policy No.200921923340024305 w.e.f.16.12.2019 to 15.12.2020. The said vehicle of the complainant met with an accident at Nooh in Haryana on 17.09.2020. Intimation regarding the accident was given to the opposite party/insurance company as well as surveyor of the insurance company. Surveyor of the insurance company visited the spot and prepared the estimate. The complainant submitted all the documents of the vehicle with the insurance company. Thereafter, the complainant received a letter dated 09.10.2020 from the opposite party/insurance company vide which the opposite party/insurance company repudiated the claim of the complainant on the wrong and false ground. There 2 Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Sh.Mohd Salim.
(F.A. No.172/2023) is deficiency in the service on the part of opposite party/insurance company. Hence, the present complaint.
3. The complaint of the complainant was contested by the opposite party/insurance company by filing reply and stated that the investigator appointed by the insurance company found that the complainant had sold the vehicle in question to one Mr.Salim. This act of the insured/complainant is against the terms and conditions mentioned under the 'Limitations as to use' Provision mentioned under the Policy Certificate. Further, the vehicle was being driven without valid permit and plying of the vehicle without a valid permit is also violation of Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. As such, the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice 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(s) and reiterating 3 Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Sh.Mohd Salim.
(F.A. No.172/2023) those of complaint.
5. Thereafter, the parties led evidence in support of their respective pleadings.
6. After hearing the parties, learned District Commission below allowed the complaint of the complainant.
7. Feeling aggrieved by the order of learned District Commission, the appellant/Insurance company preferred the instant appeal before this Commission.
8. Arguments heard on behalf of the parties and perused the record carefully.
9. Learned counsel of the appellant/insurance company has submitted that the vehicle in question is a transport/commercial vehicle and was being plied without any permit, therefore, the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated by the insurance company. He further submitted that without permit the claim of the complainant cannot be allowed as permit is sine qua non as per Section 66 of the Motor 4 Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Sh.Mohd Salim.
(F.A. No.172/2023) Vehicles Act. He further submitted that the complainant has got no insurable interest as he has sold the vehicle in question to one Mr.Salim. He further submitted that as per RC unladen weight of the vehicle is less than 3000 kg., whereas the gross vehicle weight is 3425 kg. which is more than 3000 kg. He further submitted that the impugned order is bad in law and the same is liable to the set aside. He has also relied upon the orders of Hon'ble National Commission in case titled New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Birbal Singh Jhakhar, Revision Petition No.2476 of 2012 dated 06.02.2014 and case titled United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Singhla Engineers Contractors Pvt. Ltd. and Ors., Revision Petition No.313 of 2015 dated 24.08.2020 and prays that appeal of the appellant/insurance company be allowed.
10. On the other hand, learned counsel of the respondent/complainant has submitted that Annexure C-5 is the permit. He further submitted that as per Section 87 of the Motor Vehicles Act, there is a provision of temporary permit and complainant has taken temporary permit for one month which is 5 Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Sh.Mohd Salim.
(F.A. No.172/2023) Annexure C-5. He further submitted that temporary certificate was effective from 02.09.2020 to 30.09.2020 and on the date of accident Annexure C-5 was in existence. He further submitted that the impugned order does not require any interference and prays that appeal of the appellant/insurance company be dismissed.
11. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the appellant/ insurance company has submitted that Annexure C-5 is not a route permit.
FINDINGS
12. The admitted fact emerging on record is that during the existence of policy, the vehicle of the complainant bearing registration No.HP-11A-6566 met with an accident in Haryana on 17.09.2020.
13. It is further admitted fact emerging on record that laden weight of vehicle i.e. Mahindra Pickup is 3425 Kg. This vehicle is a commercial vehicle and permit for plying the said vehicle is required as per Section 66 of the M.V. Act. 6
Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Sh.Mohd Salim.
(F.A. No.172/2023)
14. Bare perusal of Annexure C-5 indicates that said document is not a permit as required under Section 66 of the M.V. Act. Annexure C-5 is a Checkpost Tax e-receipt which is entry fee issued by Government of Haryana, Department of Transport to enter in State of Haryana for one month and same cannot be termed a temporary permit.
15. Thus, it is apparent on record that on the date of accident, the complainant was not holding any permit and has failed to place on record the same for the reason best known to him. As such, it is proved on record that on the date of accident, the complainant was plying the vehicle without permit in violation of Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
16. So far as the another plea of the appellant/insurance company that the complainant has no insurable interest as he has sold the vehicle in question to his driver Mr.Salim does not seem to be correct as the R/C of the vehicle in question Annexure C-2 is in the name of the complainant.
7
Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Sh.Mohd Salim.
(F.A. No.172/2023)
17. As discussed above, since the respondent/complainant has failed to establish on record that at the time of the accident he was holding valid permit of the vehicle in question, as such, the insurance company has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant.
18. In view of the above stated facts, the appeal of the appellant/insurance company is allowed and the order passed by learned District Commission below is set aside.
19. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
20. Certified copy of order be sent to the parties and their counsel(s) strictly as per rules. File of learned District Commission below alongwith certified copy of order be sent for information and file of State Commission be consigned to record room after due completion. Appeal is disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also disposed of.
Justice Inder Singh Mehta President Veena 8