State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Smt. Rajiya Begum vs B.M. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. on 14 January, 2011
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G)
Appeal No.628/2010
Instituted on : 19/10/2010
Smt. Rajiya Begum, W/o Shri Abul Mazid,
R/o : House No.29/242,
Babulal Gali, Ambedkar Ward,
Jagdalpur, District Baster (C.G) .... Appellant
Vs.
Branch Manager,
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited.
Jagdalpur, District Baster (C.G) ... Respondent
PRESENT :
HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI S.C. VYAS, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE SMT. VEENA MISRA, MEMBER
HON'BLE SHRI V.K. PATIL, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES :
Shri R.K. Bhawnani, for appellant.
Shri Shishir Bhandarkar, for respondent.
ORDER (ORAL)
DATED : 14 /01/2011 PER :- HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI S.C. VYAS, PRESIDENT This appeal is directed against the order dated 15/10/2010 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Baster, at Jagdalapur (C.G) (hereinafter called "District Forum" for short), in Complaint Case No. 09/2010, whereby the complaint of the appellant herein, in respect of claim for compensation on account of damage to the insured vehicle No.C.G.17/T-0254 in a road accident, has been dismissed on the ground that the complainant, does not come in the category of // 2 // „consumer‟ as the vehicle in question was already requisitioned during the subsistence of the insurance to the Superintendent of Police, Bijapur (C.G).
2. The facts of the case are that vehicle No.C.G.17/T-0254, is of the registered ownership of the complainant/appellant, which was insured by the respondent/Insurance Company as a Passenger Carrying Vehicle under the insurance policy given for that purpose. Under the insurance policy, the own damage cover regarding the vehicle, was also provided. The case of the complainant was that vehicle in question suffered road accident on 16/12/2008 when Police force was being carried by it. Prior to it, that vehicle was requisitioned by the Reserved Inspector (Police Department), Bijapur (C.G) on 31/07/2008 for the purpose of Police use. The incident was reported to the Police Station, Kodenar, District Baster (C.G) and a case u/s 279 & 337 of the Indian Penal Code was registered, then the vehicle was inspected by the Surveyor appointed by the Insurance Company, who assessed the loss of Rs.1,74,900/-. The complainant appellant preferred a claim for that amount before the Insurance Company, but the Insurance Company repudiated the claim on the ground that at the relevant time, the insured was not having any permit as per terms of the insurance policy and therefore, the claim is not payable. Then the complainant filed complaint before the District Forum. The case of the // 3 // complainant before the District Forum was that as the vehicle in question, was being used for Police, so under Section 66(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, no permit was necessary and the Insurance Company, could have at least settled her claim on non-standard basis.
3. The respondent/Insurance Company, in reply of the complaint averred that no amount was payable to the complainant by the Insurance Company, because the vehicle in question, was registered as a Taxi, but the insured has not obtained any permit for plying that vehicle as Taxi and, thus, violated the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as well as terms of the insurance policy. It has also been averred by the Insurance Company that at the relevant time, the vehicle was requisitioned by the Reserved Inspector (Police Department), Bijapur (C.G) and, therefore, only Police Department, as well as Government of Chhattisgarh, are responsible to compensate the complainant, in respect of damages occurred to the vehicle in question. On the basis of these defences, the liability was denied by the Insurance Company.
4. Learned District Forum, after having considered the rival contentions raised before it by both parties and on the basis of a reported judgment of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Limited. Vs. Deepa Devi & Others AIR (2008) // 4 // 735 (SC), held that the Insurance Company, is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant. Feeling aggrieved by this order, this appeal has been filed by the complainant/appellant.
5. We have heard arguments of both parties and perused record of the District Forum.
6. In the record of District Forum, a letter of office of Superintendent of Police, Bijapur (C.G) is available at page No.58, which is having a heading of " Report regarding requisitioned vehicles by the Reserved Police Centre, Bijapur (C.G)". In this proforma, number of the insured vehicle, has been referred. The name of driver of the insured vehicle, has also been mentioned and the name of the complainant, is also there as owner of the vehicle. It has been specifically mentioned that the vehicle was requisitioned for use of SSB 39 BN C.O : Akash Nagar and meter reading at the time of requisition of the vehicle, was noted. This proforma is signed by Reserved Inspector, Bijapur (C.G). One more letter is available in the record of the District Forum, is available at page No.61, which also bears signature of Reserved Inspector, Bijapur (C.G). It appears to be a letter written by Reserved Inspector, Bijapur (C.G) after requisition of the vehicle on 24/09/2008. This letter is addressed to the complainant. By this letter, Reserved Inspector demanded photocopy of the registration paper of vehicle No.C.G.17/T-0254 and informed that this // 5 // registration paper be filed with Vehicle Branch Office of the Reserved Police, Bijapur (C.G) for verification, so, that amount of hire, in respect of the vehicle, can be paid.
7. These two documents clearly shows that the vehicle in question, was requisitioned by the Reserved Police, Bijapur (C.G) on hire on the condition of payment of fare and vehicle was never transferred by the complainant to the Police or it was not forcefully possessed by the Police without any payment.
8. Counsel for the Insurance Company has drawn our attention towards judgment of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Ningamma and another Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2009 ACJ 2020. Hon‟ble Supreme Court in this case, has found that when vehicle is borrowed by a third person for his use, then such borrower steps into the shoes of the owner, and, therefore, such borrower cannot claim compensation from the owner regarding his injuries u/s 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. In that case, as there was no involvement of any other vehicle, therefore, claim was not found maintainable against the owner on the principle that borrower of the vehicle steps into shoes of the owner, and, therefore, he can not claim compensation from the owner. The facts of that case were altogether different with the facts of the present case and it is of no help to the Insurance Company, because in the facts of the present case, the claim // 6 // is in respect of own damage to the vehicle, for which insurance cover was obtained from the respondent Insurance Company and it is not a case of injury to the third party, than the insurer or insured.
9. Another case, which has been referred by learned counsel for the respondent is National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Deepa Devi and others, 2008 ACJ 705 (SC). This case was also cited by the Insurance Company before the District Forum and on the basis of the principle laid down by Hon‟ble Supreme Court in this case, the complaint of the appellant herein, has been dismissed by the District Forum. In the facts of the case, which was decided by Hon‟ble Supreme Court, a private car which was insured for insured‟s own purpose was requisitioned during the Assembly Elections in the year 1993 by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Rampur and said vehicle was in possession and control of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Then, it suffered a road accident in which a boy sustained injuries, who later on expired. Then, legal heirs and legal representatives of deceased filed an application for compensation in terms of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the owner and Insurance Company. In that case, it was found that as owner was having no control over the vehicle, which was a private vehicle and he has no say as to whether the vehicle should be driven at a given point of time or not and, so, it was found that State was liable to pay compensation to the // 7 // claimants and not the registered owner of the vehicle and consequently also the Insurance Company. That was a case of compensation payable to a third party in a road accident. Such cases are required to be decided on altogether different consideration, than the cases of own damage to the vehicle. That was a private vehicle, which was requisitioned by the State, so State was found liable for payment of compensation, whereas in the facts of the present case, a transport vehicle was requisitioned by the Reserved Inspector (Police Department), Bijapur (C.G) on payment of fare i.e. hire amount to the registered owner of the vehicle and therefore, in the facts of the present case, the registered owner remains the owner of the vehicle and consequently the insured for own damage liability, and so she is entitled to get compensation under the insurance policy for the damage to the insured vehicle during the subsistence of the insurance cover. The vehicle could be given on hire to anyone as per terms of the insurance policy including Police and if it was given on hire to the Police , then position in respect of damage to the vehicle and cover of own damage under the insurance policy, do not alter. We find that case cited by the learned counsel for the respondent has got no application in the facts of the present case.
// 8 //
10. Learned counsel for the respondent has further submitted that as vehicle in question, was being used as transport vehicle, therefore, under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, permit was necessary and as no permit was obtained by the complainant/appellant, so, also the Insurance Company was not liable. In this regard, the provisions of Section 66(3)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 are required to be considered. Section 66 says that there is necessity of permits for use of the vehicle as a transport vehicle in any public place whether or not such vehicle is actually carrying any passengers 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 him the use of the vehicle in that place in the manner in which the vehicle is being used. Sub-clause (3) of Section 66 makes provision regarding some exclusions to the aforesaid Clause of necessity for permits and Sub-clause (3) says that :
"(3) The provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 66 shall not apply :-
(a) to any transport vehicle owned by the Central Government or a State Government and used for Government purposes unconnected with any commercial enterprise;
(b) to any transport vehicle owned by a local authority or by a person acting under contract with a local authority and used solely for road cleaning, road watering or conservancy purposes;
(c) to any transport vehicle used solely for police, fire brigade or ambulance purposes;
// 9 //
(d) ..................
..................
...................
(p) ..................."
11. Thus, when a vehicle is solely used for police purposes, then no permit is necessary in view of the provisions of Section 66(3)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Counsel for the respondent tried to argue that at the relevant time, vehicle in question, was used by Central Reserved Police Force (hereinafter called as "C.R.P.F." for short), which is not a Police. We do not agree with this argument, because what sub-section 3(c) of Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 envisages is that purpose of use should be of Police i.e. vehicle should be used solely for the Police purposes. It is not in dispute that at the relevant time C.R.P.F. was also working in the Bijapur (C.G) area for Police purposes and it‟s job was that of policing i.e. of providing security to the citizens of that area and to safeguard them from mis-creants and law- breakers. Whether it was State Police or C.R.P.F or any other Police force having some other name, but so long as it performs duty for the Police purpose, the requirement of having permit under Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is no longer exists.
// 10 //
12. Thus, we find that at the relevant time when the vehicle in question was damaged, it was not necessary to obtain any permit as it was being used for Police purpose.
13. But, at the same time, we further find that vehicle in question was insured and registered as „Transport Vehicle‟, and was being used by the complainant/appellant as „Transport Vehicle‟ and, so, it was necessary of her to have a permit if it was used otherwise for Police purpose and upto that extent, there appears some violation of the terms of the insurance policy on her part and so, claim of the complainant/appellant, was to be settled by the Insurance Company on non-standard basis.
14. In view of the aforesaid, the appeal is allowed; the impugned order passed by the District Forum, is set aside. The respondent/Insurance is directed to pay 75% of amount of Rs.1,00,123/- assessed by the Surveyor, to the appellant/complainant, along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till date of payment and Rs.1,000/- as cost of litigation. If the salvage is returned by the appellant/complainant to the respondent / Insurance Company, then the aforesaid amount would be payable, otherwise value of the salvage be deducted from the assessment made // 11 // by the Surveyor and then 75% of that amount, would be payable along with interest. With this direction, the appeal is disposed of.
(Justice S.C.Vyas) (Smt. Veena Misra) (V.K. Patil)
President Member Member
/01/2011 /01/2011 /01/2011