17-12-2014 - The reasons for delay in disposal of this appeal can be seen from the order sheet.
Heard Mr. G.C.Jha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company on the prayer for condonation of delay of about 69 days in filing this appeal as well as on merits.
2. Regarding the delay Mr. Jha submitted that due to the official procedure there was delay which may be condoned.
3. On merits, he submitted that the claim of the complainant-respondent was rightly repudiated on the ground that the insured vehicle had no permit at the time of incident. Referring to IV (2008) CIJ 1(SC) National Insurance Co. etc. and II (2010) CPJ 9(SC) Amlendu Sahoo etc. he submitted that at best the claimant could be held entitled to 75% of the insured value, on non -standard basis.
4. According to the complainant, being unemployed, he purchased the vehicle in question for his livelihood by taking loan from the Bank. The vehicle was insured. It was kept parked at his house for about a week due to lapse of its permit. In the night of 17/18th March, 2012 at about 1 A.M. some unknown miscreants set the insured vehicle on fire, due to which the vehicle damaged completely. An F.I.R. was lodged on 18.3.2012. The Claimant claimed the insured value of the vehicle i.e. Rs. 4,20,000/- besides other claims i.e. Rs. 20000/- for mental agony and harassment and Rs. 5000/- as litigation cost.
5. In the written statement filed by the Insurance Company, interalia it was stated that the claim was repudiated for the reason of the failure of the permit at the time of incident; and that not plying the vehicle due to failure of permit for a week is not an excuse; and that not making the permit up to date , was violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. Therefore, the claim was rightly repudiated and there was no deficiency in service.
6. In the present case the Surveyor assessed the claim on total loss basis. The police submitted chargesheet according to which the case was found true against unknown miscreants which were clueless.
7. The learned Lower Forum interalia, held as follows;
“After carefully considering the evidences, all the exts. and arguments of both the sides, it appears to me that the argument of the learned lawyer for the complainant is a convincing one. The purpose of permit relates to plying of the vehicle on road and not for keeping it in the house of its owner and the incidence, as also proved by police investigation, occurred at the shed in front of the house of the complainant and offence was committed by unknown person and the police submitted chargesheet as offence true but clueless. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Insurance Co. is liable to pay compensation.”
Accordingly the Insurance Company was directed to pay Rs. 3,89,500/- as assessed by the Surveyor along with Rs. 5000/- for mental harassment and Rs. 2000/- as litigation cost within 60 days from the order, failing which the Insurance Company was also liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum till the payment.
8. In the facts and circumstances noted above, lapse of permit was no ground to repudiate the claim as the vehicle was found burnt by unknown miscreants while it was kept parked awaiting renewal of permit. The argument of Mr. Jha that at best 75% of insured value could be given on non standard basis, is also not acceptable. No such term in the Insurance Policy was shown under which the vehicle with a lapsed permit cannot be even kept parked.
10. Accordingly, even if the delay of about 69 days in filing this appeal is condoned, we find no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed.
Issue free copy of this order to all concerned for information and needful.
Ranchi,
Dated:- 17-12-2014
