State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. vs Sh. Sudesh Kumar. on 27 February, 2015
H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
SHIMLA.
First Appeal No.371/2014
Date of Presentation: 22.10.2014
Date of Decision: 27.02.2015
.......................................................................................
1. United India Insurance Company Ltd.,
Through its Regional Manager,
Motor Dealers Office,
SCO 149/150 (2nd Floor), Sector 8-C,
Chandigarh.
2. United India Insurance Company Ltd.,
Through its Divisional Manager,
Divisional Office, Timber House,
Cart Road, Shimla-171001.
........... Appellants.
Versus
Sh. Sudesh Kumar s/o Sh. Jagdish Chand,
R/o Village Gawana, P.O. Kuthara,
Tehsil Rohru, District Shimla, H.P.
........... Respondents.
........................................................................................
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, President
Hon'ble Mrs. Prem Chauhan, Member
Hon'ble Mr. Vijay Pal Khachi, Member
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the Appellants: Mr. P.S. Chandel, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. S.S. Roach, Advocate.
.................................................................................................
1
Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order?
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. vs. Sudesh Kumar
(F.A. No.371/2014)
______________________________________________________________________
O R D E R:
Justice Surjit Singh, President (Oral) Present appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed against the order dated 03.09.2014, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shimla, whereby a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, filed by respondent-Sudesh Kumar, against the appellants, has been allowed and a direction given to them to pay a sum of `3,13,650/- on net of salvage basis, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, by way of insurance claim, for the insured vehicle, and also to pay `25,000/- on account of damages for mental harassment and litigation expenses.
2. Admitted facts are that respondent purchased a light commercial vehicle meant for carriage of goods, vide sale certificate dated 17.07.2010, for a consideration of `4,64,000/-. Page 2 of 6
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. vs. Sudesh Kumar (F.A. No.371/2014) ______________________________________________________________________ The vehicle was insured with the appellants for a period of one year from 17.07.2010 to 16.07.2011. Temporary registration certificate was issued for a period of thirty days from the date of purchase of the vehicle. Within this period of thirty days, i.e. on 10.08.2010, vehicle met with an accident and was completely damaged. This was, thus, a case of total loss. This fact is also not in dispute. Respondent lodged a claim with the appellants, which was repudiated on the grounds that the vehicle had not been permanently registered and also fitness certificate in respect of the vehicle was not there. Respondent felt aggrieved by repudiation of his claim and filed a complaint.
3. Appellants contested the complaint and pleaded that the vehicle was a goods carrier and without a fitness certificate, permit and permanent registration, it could not have been used for carriage of goods and that at the time Page 3 of 6 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. vs. Sudesh Kumar (F.A. No.371/2014) ______________________________________________________________________ when the accident took place, admittedly, apple boxes were being carried in the vehicle.
4. Learned District Forum, vide impugned order, has rejected the appellants' plea and allowed the complaint.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
6. Vehicle was temporarily registered on the very day of its sale, as is made out from Annexure C-3, the temporary registration certificate. The registration was to remain valid for a period of thirty days, to be computed from 17.07.2010. When the accident took place, the temporary registration certified, vide Annexure C-3, was valid. Therefore, appellants cannot be heard to say that the vehicle was being plied without registration and thus there was breach of a condition of the policy.
7. Another plea raised by the appellants is that the vehicle being a goods vehicle, could Page 4 of 6 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. vs. Sudesh Kumar (F.A. No.371/2014) ______________________________________________________________________ not have been used for carriage of goods, without permit and also without fitness certificate. No fitness certificate is required for a period of two years in respect of a new vehicle.
8. As regards the plea that there was no permit, though it is not specified in the reply as to what kind of permit was supposed to be obtained by the respondent, it can safely be inferred that perhaps the appellants mean the permit, required to be obtained under sub- section (3) of Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Sub-section (3) of Section 66 exempts certain vehicles from the requirement of permit and one of these conditions, vide clause (i), is a goods vehicle, where gross weight of the vehicle does not exceed 3,000 kgs. In the present case, the gross weight of the vehicle, as per sale certificate, Annexure C-1, is 2,750 kgs., or say less than 3,000 kgs. and, therefore, there was no necessity of obtaining the permit, within Page 5 of 6 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. vs. Sudesh Kumar (F.A. No.371/2014) ______________________________________________________________________ the meaning of Section 66 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, for using the vehicle for carriage of goods.
9. In view of the above stated position, appeal is dismissed.
10. A copy of the order be sent to each of the parties, free of cost, as per Rules.
(Justice Surjit Singh) President (Prem Chauhan) Member (Vijay Pal Khachi) Member February 27, 2015.
*DC Dhiman* Page 6 of 6