National Consumer Disputes Redressal
United India Insurace Co. Ltd. vs Jarnail Singh on 12 April, 2016
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 3885 OF 2008 (Against the Order dated 22/05/2008 in Appeal No. 17/2007 of the State Commission Himachal Pradesh) 1. UNITED INDIA INSURACE CO. LTD. Regional Office-I Kanchenjunga Building 18,Barakhamba Road New Delhi-110001 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. JARNAIL SINGH B.M.R.Transport Parasad Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. PREM NARAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner : Mr. Kishore Rawat, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Satyender Kumar, Advocate
Dated : 12 Apr 2016 ORDER
1. This revision petition has been filed by United India Insurance Company Ltd., the petitioner against the order dated 22.5.2008 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Himachal Pradesh, (in short 'the State Commission').
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent's truck bearing registration No.MP-26 D-5848 met with accident near Lal Singhi due to break failure and it struck against a big safeda tree. This resulted in causing damage to the truck. FIR No.140 dated 7.3.2002 was lodged at the Police Station against the driver and matter is pending trial before the Magistrate at Una. The vehicle in question was insured for Rs.7,80,000/- and the complainant got it repaired after accident by incurring huge expense. The petitioner Insurance Company repudiated the claim vide its letter No.313/2003 dated 30.5.2003. The respondent then filed a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Una District Una, (in short 'the District Forum'), which was dismissed vide its order dated 22.11.2006.
3. Aggrieved with the order dated 22.11.2006 of the District Forum, an appeal was preferred by the complainant/respondent before the State Commission, which passed the following order on 22.5.2008:-
"In view of the aforesaid discussions while partly allowing this appeal it is ordered that the appellant is entitled to sum of Rs.2,50,125/- as non-standard claim from the respondent alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 17.6.2004 till the date of payments/deposit whichever is earlier, leaving the parties to bear their own costs."
4. Hence the revision petition by the petitioner, Insurance Company.
5. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the records carefully.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that truck in question met with an accident in Himachal Pradesh where it was plying without any valid permit and hence the insurance claim was repudiated by the petitioner Insurance Company as this was a clear violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. In fact the truck had valid permit for only four States namely, Chhattisgarh, Maharashtra, Gujrat and Rajasthan. The respondent/complainant had not taken even any temporary permit to enter the State of Himachal Pradesh. The respondent has submitted that he has paid toll tax and the goods tax while entering Himachal Pradesh. Toll tax and goods tax are levied on commodities being transported by the vehicle and are not related to the taxes paid for the vehicle for entering a particular State. The District Forum has critically examined this issue has reached the conclusion that the truck was plying in Himachal Pradesh without any valid permit and this is a clear violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. The State Commission has relied on the judgments of Kesarben Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2000) NCJ 632 And 2000 CCJ 64 (NC) Poly Mat India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd.
7. Learned counsel asserted that the facts in these cases are different and these judgements are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Generally, the insurance claim on non-standard basis is allowed only in such cases where there is some miner lacuna, which does not materially affect the claim. In the present case, the vehicle was not authorised to ply in the State of Himachal Pradesh where it met with the accident. This is a major violation of the terms and conditions of the policy and allowing claim on non-standard basis cannot be applied.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner also cited the following judgments of this Commission in support of his assertion:-
(i) Kalyan Singh Chauchan Vs. National insurance Company, III (2014) CPJ 16 (NC), wherein following has been held:
"Consumer Protection Act, 1986- Sections 2(1)(g), 21(b)- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988- Sections 66 (1), 192(A), 39- Insurance- Accident of vehicle - Invalid route permit and registration- Claim repudiated- Alleged deficiency in service- District Forum allowed claim on non-standard basis- State Commission allowed appeal- Hence revision- Vehicle was being plied on public road without valid route permit at the time of accident- For that violation, penal liability provided under Section 192(A) of M.V. Act, 1988- Complainant cannot claim indemnity in view of violation of expressed "Limitations as to Use" provided in insurance contract- By permitting vehicle to be driven without registration, petitioner has committed violation Section 39 of M.V. Act, which also amounts to fundamental breach of policy- Repudiation justified."
(ii) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sh. Deepak Jayoti Sharma, RP No.1180 of 2010, decided on 29.09.2015 (NC). The following has been observed:-
"11. It is an admitted fact, that vehicle in question was not having any valid route permit.
12. Present case is of "Own Damage" and not of "Third Party Claim".
13. The issue involved in the present case is no more 'Res integra in view of decision of this Commission in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Dharam Raj, IV (2005) CPJ 115 (NC), in which this Commission held;
"2. Facts giving rise to this revision lie in a narrow compass. Respondent was the owner of a vehicle bearing registration No.HR-47/7207 which was insured with petitioner for the period from 25.07.2000 to 24.07.2001. On 22.06.2001 when respondent was going in the vehicle for his personal work i.e. to return empty 5/6 milk tanks, it turned turtle due to failure of steering and its body was badly damaged. Intimation regarding incident was sent to the petitioner.
3. On 31.08.2001, the petitioner repudiated the claim on the ground of respondent not having a valid permit of the vehicle on 22.6.2011, the date of incident. Complaint alleging deficiency in service filed by the respondent was contested by the petitioner on the ground taken in repudiation letter. Award for said amount of Rs.90,353/- was made taking note of the reports of B.S. Kohli and Rajesh Grover, Surveyors and Loss Assessors appointed by the petitioner.
4. Only submission advanced by Mr. Karan Mehra for petitioner was that the respondent was not having permit authorizing the use of vehicle in question as a transport vehicle on the date of accident. Permits was obtained later on 25.7.2000 to 24..2001. Use of vehicle on the date of accident was, thus, in violation of Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988(for short the Act) as also in breach of condition of insurance policy. Reliance was placed on the decision in Oriental Insurance Co. v. Soni Cheriyan, VI (1999) SLT 565-II (1999) CPJ 13 (SC)=1999 (6) SCC 451.
5. Permit is defined in Section 2(31) of the Act as under:
"Permit means a permit issued by a State or Regional Transport Authority or an authority prescribed in this behalf under this Act authorizing the use of a motor vehicle as a transport vehicle."
Omitting three provisions, Sub-section (1) of Section 66 which is material, reads thus;
"No owner of a motor vehicle shall use or permit the use of the vehicle as transport vehicle in any public place whether or not such vehicle is carrying any passenger or goods save in accordance with the conditions of a permit granted or countersigned by Regional or State Transport Authority or any prescribed authority authorizing the use of the vehicle in that place in the manner in which the vehicle is being used."
6. Bare reading of this provision would show that it creates a total bar on use of a vehicle in any public place whether or not such vehicle is carrying any passenger or goods unless the owner thereof holds a permit as defined in Section 2 (31). It is not in dispute that respondent was not possessing a permit of the said vehicle on the date of accident. Said sub-section would, thus, be applicable even if vehicle in question was used by the respondent for his personal work. i.e. to return empty 5/6 milk tanks as alleged in para no.2 of the complaint. Insurance policy represents a contract between the insurer and the insured and the insured has to act strictly in accordance with the statutory limitations and/or the terms of policy. Since use of vehicle in question at the time of incident was in contravention of aforesaid Sub-section (1) of Section 66 and conditions of policy, the respondent is not entitled to any amount under the policy. Orders passed by Fora below being legally erroneous cannot be sustained and deserve to be set aside.
7. Resultantly, while allowing revision, aforesaid orders dated 28.1.2003 and 27.3.2002 are set aside and complaint dismissed. Awarded amount received by the respondent will be refunded to the petitioner-insurance company within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No order as to cost."
14. Therefore, order passed by both the Fora below are not sustainable at all. Accordingly, order passed by the Fora below are set aside. Hence, present revision petition stand allowed. Consequently, the complaint filed by the respondent stand dismissed."
9. Learned counsel for the respondent argued that the vehicle in question legally entered the State of Himachal Pradesh and deposited toll tax and goods tax at the entry point of the State. It clearly means that the vehicle was legally allowed to ply within the State Government of Himachal Pradesh by the authorities of the State Government of Himachal Pradesh. Judgments relied upon by the State Commission are totally applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case and the order of the State Commission is totally justified.
10. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by both the parties and have gone through the records. The District Forum in its order dated 22.11.2006 has dealt the issue in great details:-
"Admittedly, no route permit was obtained for plying the vehicle, in question, within the State of Himachal Pradesh. Section 88 of the Motor Vehicles Act provides that a permit granted by the Regional Transport Authority of any one region shall not be valid in any other region, unless the permit has been countersigned by Regional Transport Authority of that other region, and a permit granted in any one State shall not be valid in any other State unless countersigned by the State Transport Authority of that other State of by the Regional Transport Authority concerned. In view of the provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, the vehicle, in question was being plied without route permit. The contention of the learned counsel for the complainant that goods and toll taxes were paid for plying the vehicle in the State of Himachal Pradesh cannot be accepted for simple reason that payment of goods and toll taxes can not satisfy the requirement of Section 88 of the Motor Vehicles Act regarding obtaining of route permit. Section 87 of the Motor Vehicles Act provides for grant of temporary permit to meet a particular temporary need, but no temporary permit was also obtained in the present case. On these facts of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the vehicle, in question, was being plied within the territory of Himachal Pradesh in violation of Section 87 and 88 of the Motor Vehicles Act and thus against the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy, accordingly, we find no merits in the complaint and same is dismissed with no order as to cost."
11. Similarly, the State Commission also in its order dated 22.5.2008 has noted the following:-
"After having given our thoughtful consideration, we are satisfied that there is violation of terms and conditions of the policy of insurance, subject to which the vehicle was insured with the appellant, therefore, submissions to the contrary made on behalf of the appellant are without any merit are thus rejected. We would also point out that breach of terms of policy including the use of vehicle is also made out from the circumstances of this case."
12. From the above, it is clear that both the fora below have accepted that the breach of terms and conditions of the policy have been made in the present case. I agree with the observations of the District Forum that the payment of toll tax and goods tax at entry point of the State does not entitle the vehicle to ply within the State as these taxes relate to commodities being transported. It is also admitted that there was no permit to ply in the State of Himachal Pradesh and also that no temporary permit was taken to enter into the State of Himachal Pradesh. Thus, there was clear violation of Sections 66, 87and 88 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. This is a fundamental breach of terms and conditions of the policy. Accordingly, the Insurance Company/petitioner has rightly repudiated the claim. Violators of law cannot deserve any concessional treatment.
13. Based on the above discussion and relying on the Kalyan Singh Chauchan Vs. National insurance Company (supra) and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sh. Deepak Jayoti Sharma (supra), I find merit in the revision petition, which is allowed and the order dated 22.5.2008 of the State Commission is set aside and the order dated 22.11.2006 of the District Forum is upheld.
14. No order as to costs.
...................... PREM NARAIN PRESIDING MEMBER