State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Divisional Manager, United India ... vs Smt. Meera Rawat on 7 July, 2009
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND
DEHRA DUN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 244 / 2008
Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited
Divisional Office, 35/36, Tagore Villa
Chakrata Road, Dehradun
......Appellant / Opposite Party
Versus
Smt. Meera Rawat W/o Sh. Jalam Singh Rawat
R/o Village Jeevangarh, Post Ambari
District Dehradun
.....Respondent / Complainant
Sh. J.K. Jain, Learned Counsel for the Appellant
Sh. Rahul Sharma and Sh. Ramesh Kumar, Learned Counsel for
Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Justice Irshad Hussain, President
Smt. Kusum Lata Sharma, Member
Dated: 07.07.2009
ORDER
(Per: Justice Irshad Hussain, President):
This is insurer's appeal against the order dated 24.09.2008 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun, partly allowing consumer complaint No. 39 / 2006, so as to award compensation of Rs. 1,89,500/- with interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till payment, by way of indemnification of the loss occasioned to the complainant due to accident of her insured vehicle No. UA07 / 0497 (Mahindra Bolero). The compensation was awarded on total loss net of salvage basis, as has been determined and assessed at sum of Rs. 1,89,500/- by insurance company's surveyor vide his report dated 31.05.2005. In allowing the complaint, the learned District Forum rejected the contention of the insurance company that the insured vehicle was being plied at the time of the accident without a valid permit having been granted by the Transport Authority under 2 the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, on the ground that under Section 66(3)(i) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, no permit is required if the gross weight of the vehicle does not exceed 3000 kg. and that in repudiating the claim, insurance company made deficiency in service.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have considered their submissions in the light of the facts and legal aspects of the case. At the outset, we may state that there being no merit in this appeal, the same is liable to be dismissed.
3. The reasons are that Section 66(3)(i) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides that provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 66 shall not be applicable to any goods vehicle, the weight of which does not exceed 3000 kg. Insurance company's surveyor's report clearly indicate that the unladen weight of the vehicle in question was 1705 kg. and whereas laden weight was 2750 kg. and further that the vehicle had cargo body, meaning thereby that the same was being used and plied as a goods vehicle. Therefore, permit was not necessary in respect of this vehicle, in view of the provision of the said statute. Learned counsel for the insurance company drew attention to the decision taken by the State Transport Authority, Uttarakhand in its meeting dated 15.03.2004, whereby the utility vehicles, which were exempted from permit under Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, were required to obtain permit for plying the same as taxi / maxi cab, in case the utility vehicles registered as goods vehicle, were being utilized as taxi by the owners and submitted that the complainant was also required to obtain a road permit from the concerned Transport Authority to ply the vehicle in question on the date of the accident and since no such permit was obtained by her, there being contravention of the said decision, it amounted to breach 3 of the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance. The decision taken in the meeting of 15.03.2004, pertain to utility vehicles used as taxi / maxi cab, whereas the complainant's vehicles was used as goods vehicle, in view of it having cargo body, as stated above and secondly, the decision taken in the meeting of State Transport Authority, Uttarakhand and any circular issued thereof, would not override the statutory provision of Section 66(3)(i) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Therefore, the question of contravention of the terms and conditions of the policy do not arise and the learned District Forum has also rightly held so in accepting the complainant's claim. In the face of the facts of the case, the decision of this Commission in the matter of The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Pradeep Singh Bisht; I (2009) CPJ 364 and the decision of Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur in the matter of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sangeeta Sinha; II (2008) CPJ 271, would be of no avail to the cause of the insurance company, for the reason that in those cases, there was requirement of obtaining permit under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to ply the vehicle and on account of such breach of the provision and consequent term and condition of the policy of insurance, the insurers were absolved of their liability to pay compensation to the owners of the vehicles, which met with an accident and suffered damage.
4. In so far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, it is evident that the learned District Forum awarded above compensation, as has been assessed by the insurer's surveyor and we don't think that the learned District Forum fell in error in awarding compensation on total loss net of salvage basis.
45. For the reasons aforesaid, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
(SMT. KUSUM LATA SHARMA) (JUSTICE IRSHAD HUSSAIN) K