Order-24.

Date-03/12/2015.

In this complaint Complainant M/s. Subhankar Chattopadhyaby filing this complaint has submitted that complainant booked a Bolero Plus car of Mahindra make with the op no.1 who is the distributor of Mahindra Automobiles in the name and style of Royal Motors pursuant to the Proforma Invoice dated 03.06.2014 raised by the op no.1 and according to the said pro forma invoice the price was quoted at Rs. 7,34,296/- as the On Road price of the said Bolero Plus car.

After several rounds of negotiation, the final on road price was fixed at Rs. 7,10,496/- inclusive of Insurance, Registration Charges and all prescribed statutory fees.Thereafter complainant paid the entire price on 10.06.2014, 26.06.2014 & 04.07.2014 being On Road price inclusive Insurance charges, registration charges, handling charges along with all necessary documentation charges to ply the vehicle on road.

Thereafter the said car was delivered on 09.07.2014 from the show room of op no.1 and final bill was also issued at the time of delivery of the said car and the car was under accidental insurance cover under a policy being Policy No. OG-15-2401-1812-000141, Commercial Vehicle Class C(ii) commencing from 24.07.2014 to 23.07.2015 BDI issued by the Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Ltd. op no.2 and the said certificate was issued by op no.2 as insurer and declaring all the terms and conditions noted therein.

On 26.10.2014 the vehicle met with an accident at 226, Shanty Pally, Kolkata-700107 at about 10.00 A.M. and without making any delay the complainant sent the car at the workshop of op no.1 at Kalikapur, Garia, Kolkata – 700099 for accidental repairs on 28.10.2014.Thereafter complainant time to time enquired about the progress of work for the repair and time again the workshop assured that the work is going on.Thereafter complainant came to know that the repair work cannot be undertaken since the insurance company refused to indemnify the workshop for the repair and the complainant would have to bear all the necessary expenses.

Complainant again wrote to the Insurance Company and also to the op no.2 and for the first time complainant came to know that op had not delivered a permit to the complainant which op no.1 was supposed to deliver at the time of sale of the car and assured and undertook to deliver to the complainant.In other words at the time when the said car was plying and met with accident there was no commercial permit attached to the said vehicle.

Complainant wrote a letter on 12.11.2014 asking the op no.1 to arrange the same as the complainant was suffering from difficulty in seeking insurance company’s approval to get the accidental repair done and the car was sitting idle at the workshop of the op no.1.But there was no say that the car was running as op no.1 refused to undertake the repair and got the insurance claim in respect of the vehicle due to lack of permit.But op no.1 under the said assurance was duty bound to deliver the vehicle including all the formalities and the complainant also paid additional sum of Rs. 15,500/- for the same.

Complainant several times wrote letters to that effect and made various communications for the claim which was neither replied nor communicated for settlement of the claim and moreover by an email dated 13.11.2014 op no.1 tried to shift the liability of insurance company’s approval upon the shoulder of the op no.2.Finding no other alternative when the op no.1 asked the complainant to collect the car as and where basis complainant has no alternative but took the same on 25.11.2014.

Moreover complainant hired car and was suffering day to day loss due to non-repair of the said car and ultimately got the same repair from a garage at own cost and for the laches of ops and in respect of submitting all documents as required by the said insurance company for the purpose of processing the claim till date.

In the above circumstances, complainant has filed this complaint for negligent and deficient manner of service on the part of the ops and prayed for redressal.

On the other hand Royal Motors by filing written statement submitted that the complaint is frivolous, baseless, malafide intention and practically vehicle was for commercial vehicle and required a commercial permit to ply on road.The seller of the vehicle (op no.1) had no liability because the permit is issued under Rule 125 of West Bengal Motor Vehicle Rules 1989 and that was obtained by op no.1.But after repeated request nobody from the complainant company visited the op no.1 and received the said permit and a letter was sent to complainant by Speed Post for collection of his permit but complainant did not accept and it was submitted that as per requirement of the complaint when it was submitted.So, there is no negligence and deficiency on the part of the op no.1.

On the other hand the Insurance Company by filing written statement submitted that no doubt complainant was insured by a valid policy of insurance issued by the op subject to terms and conditions, but op has no knowledge that the said vehicle being a commercial vehicle bearing No. WB 19G 3379 met with an accident on the allotted day.But it is submitted that op sent many letters dated 09.11.2014, 12.11.2014, 20.11.2014 and op did not settle the claim and repudiated.

But truth is that complainant also admitted in complaint that he had no valid road permit though as per terms and conditions of the policy of the Insurance as well as of the law of the land, the said vehicle being a commercial vehicle is meant for passenger carriage and could ply on road only if the same has a valid road permit at the time of alleged accident, complainant could not produce valid permit in respect of the said vehicle and for which no claim amount was payable in respect of the alleged accident period, even after the alleged accident of vehicle is assumed to be true for the sake of the argument though not admitted by the ops.But from the admission of the complaint it is established that no valid road permit at the time of alleged accident was there.Thereafter op is not liable to pay any claim to the complainant.

But fact remains that complainant claimed accidental damages of Rs. 69,514/- for repairing of the said vehicle after alleging. IRDA was surveyed who accordingly submitted the loss and surveyor submitted preliminary survey report by virtue of which the total loss was assessed to the tune of Rs. 6,570/- subject to the terms and conditions of the policy and the assessed amount was made by IRDA.But complainant did not file any valid road permit for commercial for which it was repudiated.So, there was no laches on the part of the op no.2.

Decision with reasons

On proper consideration of the entire materials on record, it is found that private service permit that is commercial road permit against complainant’s vehicle being No. WB 19 G 3379 was granted on 19.05.2015 and its validity date of expiry is on 18.05.2020 and permit was given to the said S. Chattopadhyay P. Ltd. complainant.

So it is clear that the said permit was issued only on 19.05.2015 whereas the registration of the car was made on 11.07.2014 and its validity is up to 07.07.2016.For the sake of the argument if it is accepted that there was any liability on the part of the op no.1, in that case, it must be proved by the complainant that along with paper for registration, he submitted an application along with such document for getting commercial permit for plying the vehicle.But in this case it is clear that the vehicle was registered on 11.07.2014 being Vehicle No. WB 19G 3379 and that RC Book was valid up to 07.07.2016.But in view of the registration of the vehicle no application was filed for commercial vehicle for road permit by the complainant.But it was filed long after ten months from the date of registration.So, it was issued by the RTO on 19.05.2015.

But fact remains that accident took place on 26.10.2014 and admittedly on that date there was no road permit for the commercial vehicle of the complainant.Complainant is silent about that.But they have tried to show that op no.1 was authorized to handover the same but that was not handed over.

But truth is that they have registration of the car but for road permit, no application was filed by the complainant, but everything was done after accident took place on 26.10.2014 for which road permit was issued on 19.05.2015 and in fact if actually application for road permit, wouldbe filed along with registration of the said vehicle, in that case road permit shall be issued just after registration.Complainant has failed to prove that he submitted application for road permit to the op no.1 along with application form for registration of the vehicle.In fact at the time of registration of vehicle, for road permit no application was submitted by the complainant for some obvious reason for which op no.1 had no liability to file it.But after accident complainant in connivance with op no.1 filed such application at belated stage for which at subsequent stage the road permit was issued by RTO.

Another factor is that complainant has brought the allegation against op no.1 that they did not submit the road permit.But truth is that it is the duty of the owner to file such application and to get such road permit.But procuring the road permit is not the responsibility of the car seller because it is completely the desire and wish of the car owner for which route he will pray for road permit.At the same time no document is produced to that effect that along with registration of the said vehicle prayer for road permit was made by the complainant through op no.1.But everything was done after accident and for which though accident took place on 26.10.2014 they were sitting idle and after filing application for the road permit frequently they filed this complaint on 10.04.2015 when there was no road permit.

So, considering all the above fact and circumstances and admission of the complaint in Para-14 that they never received any road permit and it is admitted specifically when the said car was plying, there was no road permit attached to the said vehicle,it indicates that complainant was well aware of the fact that there was no commercial road permit and commercial road permit was taken after long gap from the date of accident when date of accident is 20.10.2014.

So, under any circumstances complainant cannot anyway accuse op nos. 1 & 2 for such laches of the complainant himself.When it is the legal responsibility of car owner to get the said permit at first for plying and considering the complainant’s own case it is clear that complainant being a big business man was aware of the fact that commercial road permit is required to ply the car but did not bother.So, the allegation of the complainant against the ops is completely false, frivolous and without any foundation.Practically vehicle had been plied by the complainant after purchase w.e.f. 11.07.2014 till date of accident 26.10.2014 having no commercial road permit though document is necessary for commercial vehicle as per policy but no doubt complainant had no valid commercial road permit on the date of accident on 26.10.2014.

So, complainant is not entitled to blame op nos. 1 & 2.In this context it is to be mentioned that as per Motor Vehicle Act 1989 Section 66 . Necessity for permits - 1) no owner of a motor vehicle shall use or permit the 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 counter signed by a 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.. That means it is legal liability on the part of the vehicle owner who is complainant who is also a private company.It is clear from the above that there was violation of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy for violation of the provision of Motor Vehicle Act and Insurance Policy is a contract between the insurer and insured.So, op Insurance Company is justified for repudiating the claim of the complainant.

At the same time it is found that the allegation against op is nothing but frivolous attempt only for the purpose of getting compensation. But anyhow laches and negligence on the part of the vehicle owner the complainant is well proved for which the present complaint has no merit when admitted position is that there was no commercial road permit on that date of accident on 26.10.2014.But complainant even after filing of this complaint on 10.04.2015 secured that road permit granted on 19.05.2014.So, it is clear that registration of the said vehicle was effective from 11.07.2014 to 07.07.2016 and there was no road permit or commercial permit in respect of the vehicle but that was plied by the complainant violating the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy and also violating the provision and regulation of the Motor Vehicle Act and in this regard it is to be mentioned that as per Rule 125 of WBMV 1989 was also violated by the complainant for which we are inclined to hold that the repudiation as made by the Insurance Company was justified, legal and valid and there was no negligence and deficiency on the part of the op no.2 the Insurance Company and regarding allegation against op no.1 it is found baseless.

In the result, this complaint fails.

Hence, it is

Ordered,

That the complaint be and the same is dismissed on contest against the ops with penal cost of Rs.5,000/- and complainant shall have to deposit the penal cost to this Forum within one month from the date of this order failing which 9 percent interest p.a. should be assessed over the same and even if complainant is found reluctant to comply the order, in that case, penal proceeding shall be started u/s 25 read with 27 of C.P. Act 1986, for which further penalty and fine shall be imposed upon the complainant.