State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Baljaj Allianz Gic Ltd. vs Chitta Ranjan Bohidar . on 27 July, 2023
//
I I
STATE CONST]M]]R DISPUTES RIIDRESSAL COMMISSION,
ODISHA. CIJT]ACK
FIRST AITI,EAL NO. 735 of 2012
(From an order dated 20.07.2012 passeci by the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sundargarh-l in
Consumer Cornplaint No. 4012012)
, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Cornpany
Limited, Branch Office at Kharvel Nagar 2-C-
Sriya Square, 3"r Floor, One-Janpath Atlpo/ps.
Kharvel Nagar, Dist. Khtrrda, Bhubaneswar.
Appellant.
Versus-
Chitta Ranjan Bohidar, S/o, Radhakanta
Bohidar, IVo Mohanty Para, Ps. 'lbwn
Dist.Sundargarh. Odisha.
Respondent.
Counsel for the Appellants- Sri Rohini Kanta Pattnail<.
Counsel for the Respondent- Sri Debais Flota,
PI{ESENT :- Sri Dillip Kumar Mohapatra, Member.
Sri Pramode Kumar Prusty, Member.
DATE OF HEARING-OS .12.2022
DATE OF OIrD ER- 27 - 07 -2023
i2
ORDER
1) This appeal arises out of an order dt.?.0-07-2012 passecl lry District Consutler Disputes Itedressal Forurn, Sundargarh-1 in Consumer Cornplaint No. 4012012. Parlies to this appeal shall be refer:red with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.
2) The case of the Complainant in brief is that, he was a Registered owner of a six wheeler tipper vehicle bearing Regn. No. oR-16- B-2047, F,ngine No.JWE2B3841, chassis No. .1wF.541223 rvhich was purchased by him to earn his livelihood and to rnaintain his farnily with t'inancial assistance under hire purchase scherne providecl by the Cholamandalonr DBS }iinanoe ltd. The said vehicle was insured with the O.Ps. vide insurance Policy No. OGl l-2407-1803-00001375 valicl from 05- 03-2011to 04-03-2012. The said vehicle rnet with an accident on dr.ll-01- 2012 at about 6 prn near L.N. College, Jharsuguda Ps/l)ist. Jharsr-rguda arrd the infonnation about the accident was intimated to the o.p No.3 immediately. After receipt of the information about the accident, the O.p appointed Surveyor to Survey the darnaged vehicle. After survey o1- tl-re damaged vehicle the Surveyor Mr. Rashmi Ranjan Rout offered tl-re Cornplainant for spot settlement of the claim at I{s.35,000/- only and as per the advise of the surveyor the Complainant sent the clairn form along with 3 required documents to one Mr. Pratap Samal, Service Engineer of the O.p.. The Complainant accepted the offer only because of the immediate payrnent so as to repair the ciamaged vehicle. But the OI)s neither paid any arloLrnt nor replied any tliing to the Cornplainant. The Cornplainant sent a letter to the Opposite Party No.2 on dt.10-02-2012 and dt.l7-02-2012 informing that he has already submitted the necessary documents except the penrit as there was no valid permit of the concerned vehicle which was infbrn-red by t6e Cornplainant to the agent of the O.I'}. Mr. Debapriya Bohidar at the tinre o1' insttrance o1'the said vehicle. But the agcnt did not press Llpon the pe,nit but required the RC copy and Regd. No. of the vehicle antl chassis No. of the vehicle. Accordingly the Complainant supplied these clocunrents along rvith the required attrount of insurance premium and the insurance was accordecl by the O.P. flor the above mentionecl vehicle of the Complainant on clt.05-03- 2011 knowing well that there was no penr-rit of the vehicle. I'he Con-rplainant was ready for the spo;t settlernent for I1s.35,000/- with the proposal of Survcyor Rashmi Itanjan Rout. Br-rt the O.P. no.2 lias repuciiated the clai;n o1. the Cornplainant on dt.20-02-2012 on the ground of late subrnission o1. documents and clairn fonns for which the Cornplainant has filed the C.D. case No.40l2012 before Dist. c.D.R. Forum, sur-rclargarh-I praying fbr a direction to the opp. Parlies to pay a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards 44 compensation under different heads Rs.1,00,000/- towards financjal loss. mental and physical harassment.
2) On receipt of notice, the Opp. Parrlies filed writtcn version stating that the flnancier of the said vehicle is Ashol< Leyland Irinapce Ltd. But financer has not been irnpleaded as a parly in this case. The Opposite Party has insured the vehicle No. OR-l6-8-2047 of the Conrplainzrnr wherein Ashok Leytand Finance limited stancls rrnder hypothecal.io, clause and said policy wo.s issued subject to tenns and conditions ancl exceptions oj. the policy' After receipt of the intir-natior-r of the accident o1'the vehicle No. OIt-16-8-2047 the O.P. appointed an indepenclent Sr-rrveyor nan-rely ltasl-rrni Ranjan Rout to assess the 1oss. The said inclependent Surveyor assessecl the Ioss at Rs.35,0001- only with a remarks that at the time of survey or at later stage insured not submitted copy of permit, tax receipt of loan cl-rdlan so that should be subrnitted and verified at insurer encl ancl salvage, being property of the insurer is to be surrenderd otherwise an amount of i{s.585/- is to be deducted liorn the llnal settlernent against the claim and the Srrrveyor Rashrni Ranjan Itout ncver offered Its.35,000/- to the Complaipant lor f,ll and final satisfaction without subrnission of pcmrit of the vehicle or documents required for the claim to the insuracne company. 'Ihc Opposite Parties repeatedly reminded the Cornplainant to submit the permit ancl other ;
5
required documents and lastly repudiated the clairn for non submission of the documents and prayed for clismissal of the case as there is no cleficiencv in service on the part of the Opposite parlies.
3) Afler l"rearing the case learned fbrurn below allowed the complaint petition and directed to opposite parties to pay a slrnl o1 Rs.50,000/ to the Complainant as compensation for harassment and mental agony within 30 days from the date of receipt of this orcler I'ailing which the Opposite Parties would be liable to pay l2%o interest on the awarded amount after 30 days of receipt of the ordertill actLral day of payrnent of the awardecl trrrrounI Lo thc Cornplainar"rt.
4) Challenging the irnpugnecl order the Appellant has frlecl the present appeal.
5) During the course of hearing, counsel for Appellant submitted that, the Cornplainant was plying the insured vehicle without any pernrit which is in gross violation of the policy condition, as such as per the settled principle of law the Appellant Insurance Cornpar-ry shoulcJ have been absolved frorn the liability. The learned Forum below hag comrnitteci error in law ancl illegality by giving a finding that the insurance company has to verify the permit before insuring any policy which is Foreign to the .l}.
6
insurance laws, whioh has vitiated. Before issuance of policy it is the cluty of' the insurance company to verify the RC Book of the vehicle as well as the physical verification of the vehicle in case there is a break up in the insurance coverage and there is no provision for makin g any veril.rcation of the genuiness of the vehicular clocument like perrnit ancl fitness, 'f5e insurance policy under which the clairn had been made being a contract apd the Complainant having failed to dischage his obligation the appellant insltrance company cannot be asked to dischage its obligation and idemnity the alleged loss of the Complainant. The basic ingreclients of Contract Act having not been appreciated. The Insurance company hag repudiatecl t5e claim of the Cornplainant as per the provision of law hence ther.e is 1o deficiency of service on the parl of the insurance company. I-earnecl Coupsel tbr theAppellant subn-ritted that the finding of the learned Forum is liable ro be set aside.
6) Learned Counsel for Appellant cited the decision repor-tccl in 2018(3) T.A.c.1 (s.c.) (civil Appeat No.2253 of 2018 (arising out of SLp (civil) No. 7692 of 2017) decided on l7't'May,20lB in casc of Amrit paul Singh and Another Vrs TATAAIG General Insurance Co. Ltd ancl others where in Hon'ble Apex Court held that:-
7
"In tlte cose at lrand, it is cleurly dentonstruhle Ji'ont tlre moteriols brought on record that tlte velticle qt the time of the
-
occident did not ltsve a permit. Tlte oppellants ltad taken tlrc stond that tlte velticle was nol ittvolvecl in the accidenl. Thot aport, tltey hud not stoted whetlter the velricle hocl tentporory pernit or any otlter kind of permit. Tlte e.rceptions thut hmte becn csrved out under Sectiort 66 of the Acl, needless to emphosise, are to be pleoded and proved. Tlte exceptiotts cunnot be token uid of in tlre course of an orguruent to seek absolution fronr litbilit.t. Use of a velticle in a public phce without o permil is o fundamental statutory infroction. We ore disposed to think so in view of tlte series of exeptions csrvecl out irt Section (t6. The said situations csnnot be equated with absence of licence or o firke licence or fl licence for dffirent kind of vehicle, or ./br tltot nralter, violotion d a condition of corrying more number of possengers. Tlterefore, the principles laid down in Swarun Singlr (Supra) snd Lskhmi Cltund (Supro) in thst regarcl would not be applicoble to tlte cose ot ltsnd. That oport, tlte insurer hud token tlte plea tltot the vehicle in question hod no permit. It does not require tlte wisdom of tlte "Tripitaka", that the existence o./' o perntit of ony nature is a mstter of documentory evidence.
Nothing ltas been brought on record by the insured to prove lhtt Ite ltod a permit of the velticle. In suclt s situation, the onus cannot be cost on tlte insurer. There.fore, llte Trihurtul as well us the High Court ltud direclecl the insurer wos required to pet the corupensation antount to tlte chinrunts with interest with the stiltuultion tltul tlre insurer sholl be entitled to reco tter lhe srnre u ' 4:l 8 from the owner snd the driver. The suitl directions ore in consononce with the principles stated in Swsrcrn Singh(Suprn) and oilrer coses pertaining to poy and recot,er principle.
7) We have heard learned counsel for tl-re appellant, perusecl the Appeal memo, DFR including the impugned order.
B) In the present case it is adrnittecl lact that on 1 -01 -2012 at 1 about 6 P.M. the vehicle rnet with an accident near L.N.College, Jharsuguclar. It is also adrnitted that at the time of accident the vehicle had no perrnit. 'fhe Cornplainant's vehicle is a heavy Goods vehicle and transport vehicle and was plying in public road in violation of Section 66 of the Motor Vehicle Acr 1988 as well as terms and condition of Insurance I'}olicy issued inrespect of the said vehicle Section 66 of M.V.Act speaks that I "lYo owner of a ntolor vehicle shull use or pernril the use of the ttelticle os il trunspor.l vehicla in tn.1t public plrce wltetlrer or not such vehicle is octuctlly curr.l,ittg utr.y possengers or goods suve in occordonce with the c\nditin o./'tt permit gronlecl or counlersigned b.v n Regiorrol of Stute Tr"otrsport Autltority or on)) prescribed uuthoritv uutltorizittg Iriru lhe use of the vehicle in thot ploce in the munner in n,hiclt the vehicle is being used"
e) On perusal of the Certificate-curn-policy schedule issued by Opp. Parties, where in it is clearly mentaioned that the policy covers use only under a permit within the meaning of the M.vAct lggg or such a caniage falling under subsectin 3 of Section 66 of M.v.Act 19gg.
10) Further we find that the appellant Insurance company has repeatedly asked the Complainant to submit the copy of permit but the Complainant failed to supply the copv of the permit of vehicle ftrr which the Insurance Company issued the letter dt.10-02-2012 vide Annexure-Vl to written statement filed by opposite parIyNo.1,2 amd,3 giving seven days time to Complainant to produce the copy of permit of vehicle failing which they will presume that Complainant is no more interested in pursuing the claim and the claim will be repudiated. As the Complaiant failed to supply the copy of the permit, on 20-02-2012 the Insurance company has repudiated the claim of Complainant.
l1) we find learned Forum below without going through the written statement filed by opposite party No.l , 2 and 3 and provisions of Motor Vehicle Act and without considering the terms and conditions of the policy has passed the impugned order which is illegal arbitrary and not sustainable in the eyes of law.
t2) Relying upon the judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex court !-4-
l() .\ 10 reported in 2018(3) TACI (S.C.) in case of Amrit Paul Singh and Another Vrs TATAAIG General Insurance Co. Ltd and others (supra)rSection 66 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 and the terms and conditions of Insurance Policy we have no hesitation to hold that the impugned order passed by learned Forum below is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be set aside.
13) Hence the impugned order is set aside.
14) In the result, Appeal is allou,ed. No cost.
1s) Statutory amount may be refunded to the Appellant on proper
identification.
16) Due to non constitution of Bench the judgement is delivered to-
day. i.e. on 27 -07 -2023.
Send back the DFR.
\=.*tL
(P.K.Prustry)-
(Member)
,r.fu
(Member