National Consumer Disputes Redressal
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Narinder Gupta on 27 July, 2017
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 1738 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 31/01/2017 in Appeal No. 1064/2015 of the State Commission Punjab) 1. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. NATIONAL LEGAL VERTICAL CO. LTD., 2E/9, JHANDEWALAN EXTENSION, NEW DELHI-110055 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. NARINDER GUPTA S/O. LT. SH. RAM SARUP GUPTA PROPRIETOR OF M/S. KAMAL BOX FACTORY, A-3, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT COLONY, JALANDHAR PUNJAB ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN,PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner : Counsel for the petitioner For the Respondent :
Dated : 27 Jul 2017 ORDER
I.A. No. 10820/2017 and I.A. No. 10821/2017 (for early hearing)
Hearing of the revision petitions is preponed. The applications are disposed of.
RP/1738/2017 and RP/1739/2017 These revision petitions are directed against the order of the State Commission dated 31.01.2017 whereby appeal filed by the petitioner company against the order of the District Forum dated 03.09.2015 came to be dismissed on merits. The respondent owned a truck which he had got insured with the petitioner company w.e.f. 01.06.2014 to 31.05.2015. The aforesaid truck met with an accident on 15.07.2017. The claim lodged by the respondent/complainant was repudiated on the ground that on the date, the truck met with an accident, the vehicle did not have a valid route permit, the same having already expired on 28.06.2014. Being aggrieved from the repudiation of the claim, the respondent/complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint.
2. The complaint was resisted by the petitioner company primarily on the ground on which the claim was repudiated. The District Forum having ruled in favour of the respondent/complainant, the insurer company approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Since the complainant was dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded to him, he also preferred an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 31.01.2017, the State Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the insurance company but partly allowed the appeal filed by the respondent/complainant thereby enhancing the compensation awarded to him from ₹7,35,000/- to ₹8,25,693/-. Being aggrieved, the insurer company is before this Commission by way of present revision petitions.
3. Section 81 of the Motor Vehicle Act to the extent it is relevant, reads as under:
"(1) xxx (2) A permit may be renewed on in application made not less than 15 days before the date of its expiry.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2), the Regional Transport Authority or the State Transport Authority, as the case may be, may entertain an application for the renewal of a permit after the last date specified in that sub-section if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by good and sufficient cause from making an application within the time specified.
(4) xxxxx (5) Where a permit has been renewed under this section after the expiry of the period thereof, such renewal shall have effect from the date of such expiry irrespective of whether or not a temporary permit has been granted under clause (d) of section 87, and where a temporary permit has been granted, the fee paid in respect of such temporary permit shall be refunded."
4. It would thus be seen that the Regional Transport Authority/State Transport Authority, as the case may, is competent to entertain an application for renewal of a permit even after the permit itself has expired. In view of the provisions of sub-section (5) of section 81, once the permit has been renewed, it has effect from the date of expiry meaning thereby once the permit was renewed, the truck shall be deemed to have a valid permit w.e.f. 28.06.2017, when the earlier permit had expired. If this was so, the truck carried a valid permit on the date it met with an accident.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner company states that renewal was granted by the Ministry of Road and Transport and not by the Regional Transport Authority. In my view, it is not for the insurance company to dispute the jurisdiction of the authority which renewed the permit and in any case not in a consumer complaint.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner company relies on the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Challa Upendra Rao & Ors., (2004) 8 SCC 517, and judgment of this Commission in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Meenakshi Jarial, 2015 SCC Online NCDRC 4666, which have no applicability to this case, in view of the permit having renewed retrospectively. The present revision petitions are devoid of any merit and therefore, dismissed.
......................J V.K. JAIN PRESIDING MEMBER