National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Satyendra Singh vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. on 5 January, 2024
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 2371 OF 2016 (Against the Order dated 18/04/2016 in Appeal No. 57/2015 of the State Commission Bihar) 1. SATYENDRA SINGH ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE AVM J. RAJENDRA, AVSM VSM (Retd.),PRESIDING MEMBER
FOR THE PETITIONER : FOR THE PETITIONER : MR.SANJEEV KUMAR VERMA, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT : FOR THE RESPONDENT : MR.MAYANK MIKHAIL MUKHERJEE, ADV.
Dated : 05 January 2024 ORDER
1. The present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the "Act") against impugned order dated 18.04.2016, passed by the learned Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Patna ('the State Commission') in First Appeal No. 57/2015 whereby the State Commission allowed the Appeal filed by the Respondent/OP against the order dated 05.02.2015 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtas, Bihar ('the District Forum') whereby the District Forum allowed the complaint filed by the Petitioner/ Complainant and directed the Respondent/OP to pay insurance claim of Rs.3,61,400/-, Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation cost totaling to Rs.3,81,400/-, within two months.
2. There was one day delay in filing the Revision Petition. For the reasons stated in IA/12421/2018, the delay is condoned.
3. For convenience, the parties are referred to as placed in the original Complaint filed before the District Forum.
4. The brief facts of the case, as per the Complainant, are that a tractor and trailer in question was insured with the Respondent/OP between 21.03.2012 to 20.03.2013. The complainant alleged that on 30.06.2012 while the driver of the complainant was coming towards Dehri in the District of Rohtas by driving the said tractor attached with the trailer. Some miscreants snatched the tractor and trailer from the driver after taking the driver captive. It is alleged that the driver was left blindfolded somewhere in the forest and somehow he came on the National Highway where people noticed and helped. On being informed by the driver, the owner of the vehicle arrived and got a complaint lodged with Police vide Barun P.S. Case No. 103 of 2012. The Insurance Company was informed on 04.07.2012 and the relevant papers were provided on 15.10.2012. However, the claimed was not settled despite several visits to the office of the OP. Vive letter dated 29.05.2013, the claim on repudiated by the OP for not providing the road permit of the vehicle for plying on road on commercial basis. The Complainant alleged that the tractor was coming along with empty trailer as such on repudiating the claim for want of road permit was not justified. Being aggrieved, the Complainant filed a Consumer Complaint before the District Forum.
5. The Respondent/OP in its Reply filed before the District Forum denied the claims specifically on the ground that the vehicle in question was being run for the commercial purposes and as such road permit was legal requirement. The Complainant failed to furnish the road permit even on demand. As such the claim was repudiated.
6. The learned District Forum vide Order dated 05.02.2015 allowed the complaint and granted the following relief:-
"11. Therefore, opposite party the Oriental Insurance Company Limited is ordered that within the period of 2 month to make payment of Insurance Claim of Rs.3,61,400/- for mental agony, Rs.10,000/- and for litigation and miscellaneous expenses Rs.10,000/-, total Rs.3,81,400/- to the Complainant. Complainant will be entitled to recover the said amount taking legal recourse if payment is not made within the said specified period."
7. Being aggrieved by the Order of the learned District Forum, the Respondent/OP filed Appeal No. 57 of 2015 before the learned State Commission and the State Commission vide order dated 18.04.2016 allowed the Appeal and dismissed the complaint filed by the Petitioner /Complainant with the following observations:
"5. Considering the submissions of the parties, materials brought on record as also the order under appeal accept the controversy that at the material time whether permit required under the M.A. Act. The complainant's case is that the vehicle was running empty and going for repair as such permit is not required however, the FIR was lodged on behalf of the complainant vide Barun P. S. case No. 103 of 2012 on 01.07.2012 it reveals that the tractor was carrying sand which was unloaded and was coming back. There is no averments made in the aforesaid. tractor/ trailer was being proceeded empty for repair so as to attract benefit of sub-section 3 of Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act which allows the running of the transport vehicle empty. It was going for repair. There is no such allegation in the complaint. These aspects of the matter is not appreciated nor considered by the District Forum. The complainant running tractor and trailer a transport vehicle without required road permit under the MV Act had violated the terms of the policy in question as such repudiating the claim cannot be held deficiency in service on the part of the appellant.
7. For the reasons and discussions above the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. It is thus set aside.
8. In the result, the appeal stands allowed."
8. Being dissatisfied by the Impugned Order dated 18.04.2016 passed by the State Commission, the Petitioner / Complainant has filed the instant Revision Petition bearing no.2371 of 2016.
9. I have examined the pleadings and associated documents placed on record and rendered thoughtful attention to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsels for both the parties.
10. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Complainant submitted that the vehicle in question was empty and was coming for the purpose of repairing at the time of incident and this fact was established from the deposition of the witnesses of the Petitioner before the District Forum. Therefore, the Respondents/OPs repudiation is unjustified. The Petitioner cited various legal precedents and Section 66 of the M.V. Act to support his case, emphasizing that the State Commission failed to consider the basic premise of the insurance policy and should not be arbitrary. The Petitioner sought proper settlement of the claim on non-standard basis and uphold the order of the District Forum. He has relied upon the following judgments:
i. S. Iyyapan Vs. M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr., Civil Appeal No.4834 of 2013, decided on 01.7.2013 by the Supreme Court;
ii. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nitin Khandelwal, IV (2008) CPJ 1 (SC);
iii. Amlendu Sahoo Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., II (2010) CPJ 9 (SC);
iv. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Gian Singh, II (2006) CPJ 83 (NC);
v. Ashok Kumar Vs. New India Ass. Co. Ltd., III (2023) CPJ 58 (SC);
vi. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Jaswant Singh, I (2013) CPJ 389 (NC).
11. On the other hand, the contentions and arguments of the Respondents/OP revolve around the assertion that the claim of the Complainant was rightly repudiated due to no permit of the vehicle in question at the time of incident to ply the same for commercial purpose. The Respondent/OP relied on certain legal precedents to assert that the proposer has a duty to submit the copy of the permit for settling the claim being driven for commercial purpose at the time of incident. He has relied upon the following judgments:
i. National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Challa Upendra Rao and Ors., (2004) 8 SCC 517;
ii. Amrit Paul Singh & Anr. Vs. TATA AIG Gen. Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., Civil Appeal No.2253 of 2018, decided on 17.5.2018 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
12. It is a matter of record that the vehicle was insured at the time of the incident in which it was alleged that it was forcefully snatched by an unknown person. An FIR was promptly lodged, and the insurance company was duly informed. The FIR indicates that the vehicle was engaged in sand delivery, suggesting commercial use. However, the Complainant contended that the vehicle was empty and returning after repairs. The insurance company argued that the vehicle lacked the necessary permit for commercial use and, therefore, the liability for any insurance claim was denied. This stand is supported by the FIR and the statement of Anil Bhuiya, the driver during the incident. It is thus established that the Complainant operated the tractor and trailer without the required road permit under the Motor Vehicles Act, constituting violation of the terms of insurance policy. Therefore, the rejection of claim cannot be deemed as deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent/OP.
13. Based on the aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered view that the Order of the learned State Commission dated 18.04.2016 does not suffer from any infirmity. The Revision Petition No. 2371 of 2016 is, therefore, dismissed.
14. There is no order as to costs. All pending Applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.
................................................................................... AVM J. RAJENDRA, AVSM VSM (Retd.) PRESIDING MEMBER