- The fact of the case of complainant is that exclusively for self employment purpose and maintaining his livelihood, on 24.06.2013 he purchased one Mahindra Maximo Mini Van bearing Sl. No. MA1FB2MCRD6D39228, Chassis no. MA1FB2MCRD6D39228, Engine no. MCD6D19527 colour white from M/s Paramount Auto Mobiles Pvt. Ltd on payment of Rs. 3,42,899/- under hire purchase finance scheme as financed by O.P.No.2 and the said vehicle was insured with the Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd (O.P.No.1) on payment of Rs. 20,538/- whose validity will be expired on 28.06.2014 with IDV of Rs. 3,42,899/-, which was registered in the office of RTO, Malkangiri bearing Regd. No. OD 30 3129 and used for transportation work.It is also alleged that on 11.02.2014 at about 5.00 P.M. during proceeding towards Kalimela with passengers, the said vehicle was burnt due to short circuit, as a result the driver of the said vehicle saved the passengers, but the vehicle was severely damaged.It is also alleged that immediate after the incident, he reported the matter with the local police, which was registered vide S.D. entry no. 270 dtd. 11.02.2014 and also informed to Office-in-Charge, Malkangiri Fire Station. The complainant further alleges that he informed the incident to the O.P.No.1, who in return with an assurance for early settlement, did not do anything and make the complainant wait till date, as such showing the deficiency on the part of the insurance company and with other allegations, he filed the case with a prayer to direct the O.Ps to pay the insured amount of Rs. 3,42,899/- with 18% interest, Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation and cost to him.
- On the other hand, the O.Ps No. 1, 3 & 4 appeared in this case and filed their joint counter denying the allegations of the complainant stating that the alleged vehicle was insured vide insurance policy no. 84430261 valid from 29.06.2013 to 28.06.2014 which is strictly binding on the specific terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It is also contended that at the material time of accident, the driver Sanjeeb Kumar Bala was holding driving licence which is valid till 06.03.2007 and vehicle was registered as transport vehicle with the RTO having capacity of 8 passengers whereas insured as commercial vehicle. And that the vehicle had no route permit at material time of accident, hence they have repudiated the insurance claim of the complainant as per the clause of insurance policy i.e. “Limitation as to use”, which was intimated to the complainant on 25.03.2014, as such denying the allegations of complainant they prayed to dismiss the case.
- The O.P. No.2 appeared in this case and filed their counter denying all the allegations of complainant stated that the complainant is a not consumer under the O.P.no.2 as they have financed the said vehicle under hire purchase agreement and with other contentions they have prayed to dismiss the case.
- In the instant case, Complainant had filed certain documents in support of his allegation against the O.Ps. but inspite of repeated adjournment given to him keeping on view of natural justice he did not participate in the hearing, as such we lost opportunities to hear from him. Whereas, all the O.Ps. filed certain documents in support of their contentions alongwith verdicts of higher Courts in support of their contentions. Heard from the O.Ps. at length through their authorized representatives and perused the materials available on record.
- In the case in hand, it is an admitted fact that the alleged vehicle was insured with the O.P. No. 1 vide policy no. 84430261 valid from 29.06.2013 to 28.06.2014, was burnt during proceeding to Kalimela on 11.02.2014 and the same was reported before the Malkangiri Police Station vide their SDE no. 270 dated 11.02.2014 and also informed to the Officer In-Charge, Malkangiri Fire Station vide their S.D. No. 112 dated 11.02.2014, which was subsequently registered as F/C no. 04/2014. It is also an admitted fact that on intimation to the O.P.No.1, an enquiry was made over the incident by the insurance company and asked the complainant to submit all the relevant documents.
- As per the averments made by the parties and the documents filed, it is revealed that the alleged vehicle was having capacity of carrying 8 passengers and was registered with RTO as transport vehicle whereas the same was insured as commercial vehicle which was burnt on 11.02.2014 while the said vehicle was proceeding towards Kalimela from Malkangiri carrying passengers. It is also revealed that the complainant informed the O.P.No.1 for settlement of insurance claim, whereas the O.P.No. 1 asked for to submit the relevant documents as required by them for settlement of claim, but since the complainant did not submit the route permit of said vehicle, the insurance claim was repudiated by O.P.No.1 on the basis of the insurance clause as mentioned in the insurance policy i.e. “limitation as to use”, which states that “passengers carrying vehicle – Class C : use only in connection with insured’s business. Use only for carriage of passengers in accordance with the permit (contract carriage or state carriage) instead within the meaning of the Motor Vehicle Act.
- Further inspite of several adjournments keeping on view of natural justice, the complainant neither choose to file route permit nor participate in the hearing, as such, we lost opportunities to ascertain whether the alleged vehicle was having route permit at the material time of accident ? Had the complainant submitted the said documents, then it could have ascertained that the alleged vehicle, whether or not, was having route permit at the material time of accident, hence such absence of complainant in the present proceeding makes the submissions of the O.P. 1, 3 & 4 strong and vital.
- In this regard, the A/R for O.P.No.1, 3 & 4 draws our attentions towards the verdicts of Hon’ble National Commission in the case between Kalyan Singh Chauhan Vrs National Insurance Company, reported in 2014 CJ 821 NC, wherein Hon’ble Commission has held that “A transport vehicle without a valid permit cannot be plied on road”. From the above decisions, it is clearly evident that violation of express “Limitation as to use” the complainant cannot be entitled to claim indemnity against the insurance claim. Further he draws our attentions in another case between United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Jarnail Singh in the Revision Petition No. 3885 of 2008 reported on 12.04.2016, wherein the Hon’ble National Commission has also held the same view. It is well settled principles that the latest verdicts of Higher Courts / Commission is always taken into consideration.
- From the above discussions, it is evident that there is clear case of breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy as well violations of provisions of Section 66 of M.V.Act made by the complainant. And plying a transport vehicle without route permit does not make the complainant entitle for any claim from the insurance company. Had the complainant submit the route permit, then, perhaps he could have entitled for the OD claim, but the complainant could not produced any document to that effect, as such the complainant has no locus standi to make any claim from the insurance company. As such, we feel, the complainant has not come with a clean hand and concealed the truth before us.Hence we do not think that the present case is a fit case for proceeding.Hence we dismiss the case having no merits.Since there is no specific claim against the O.P. No.2, there is no order against them.
ORDER
Considering the fact and circumstances of the case, the present case is dismissed against the O.Ps having no merit. No order as to costs. Parties to bear their own costs.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 14th day of December, 2017.
Issue free copy to the parties concerned.
| |
