State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Charan Singh on 12 February, 2014
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.1456 of 2013
Date of institution : 30.12.2013
Date of decision : 12.02.2014
National Insurance Company Ltd., The Mall, Bathinda, through its
Senior Divisional Manager, Regional Office, SCO No.332-334,
Sector 34-A, Chandigarh through its Manager.
.......Appellant- Opposite Party
Versus
Charan Singh s/o Shri Gurdev Singh R/o Dhobiana Road, Street
No.3, House No.21963, Bathinda.
......Respondent- Complainant
First Appeal against the order dated
8.11.2013 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Bathinda.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh, President.
Shri Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member.
Mrs. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member.
Present:-
For the appellant : Shri R.C. Kapoor, Advocate. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH, PRESIDENT :
This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/opposite party against the order dated 8.11.2013 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bathinda (in short, "District Forum"), vide which the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant, Charan Singh, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, was allowed and it was directed to pay the claim of Rs.3,60,000/-; being 75% of Rs.4,80,000/-, the I.D.V. of the vehicle, along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum with effect from 24.1.2012.First Appeal No.1456 of 2013. 2
2. The facts, to be taken notice of for the decision of the appeal at the preliminary stage, are that the complainant got his vehicle (oil tanker) bearing registration No.HR-37-A-3933 insured with the opposite party for the period 21.7.2011 to 20.7.2012, while disclosing the IDV thereof as Rs.4,80,000/- and paid the premium accordingly. This vehicle was stolen on the intervening night of 24/25.11.2011 and regarding that theft, FIR No.146 dated 8.11.2012 was got registered with the police and the information was given to the opposite party on 25.11.2011 itself. The claim made by the complainant was repudiated by the opposite party on the ground that there was no permit of the vehicle, which violated the terms and conditions of the policy. After going through the evidence produced by both the sides in support of their respective averments and hearing learned counsel on their behalf, it was held by the District Forum that the route permit had no nexus with the cause of accident though the same can be termed as breach of the Motor Vehicles Act and that the breach of such a condition was not fundamental breach and the loss was to be paid on non-standard basis. While recording that finding it relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble National Commission reported in 2005(3) CPR 124 (NC) (New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Surinder Singh Khurana).
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have carefully gone through the records of the case.
4. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the vehicle in question was being used for transporting the oil and as per the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the complainant First Appeal No.1456 of 2013. 3 was required to take the route permit. No such route permit was taken by him, which amounts to the breach of the terms and conditions of the policy and the District Forum committed an illegality while allowing the claim; which was correctly repudiated by the opposite party on account of the breach of the terms and conditions of the policy.
5. We do not find any merit in the submissions so made by the learned counsel for the opposite party. The possessing of route permit is not a condition germane to the commission of the theft of the vehicle though it could have been a valid ground in case the damage or loss was caused to the vehicle in some accident. Moreover, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2010(1) CPC 653 S.C. (Amalendu Sahoo v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.) that where there is breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, even then as per the regulations of the IRDA issued to the Insurance Companies, the claim should be allowed on non-standard basis. As per those regulations, the claim could have been allowed on non-standard basis to the tune of 75% of the insurance claim. No illegality was committed by the District Forum while allowing 75% of the insurance claim on non-standard basis. There is no ground for admitting the appeal to be heard on merits and the same is dismissed in limine.
6. The sum of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing of the appeal along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the respondent/complainant by way of a First Appeal No.1456 of 2013. 4 crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the District Forum and the appellant.
(JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH) PRESIDENT (BALDEV SINGH SEKHON) MEMBER (MRS. SURINDER PAL KAUR) February 12, 2014 MEMBER Bansal