DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Raj Kumar Bedi s/o Sh.Ashok Kumar Bedi, r/o H.No.342/A, Phase 7, Mohali.

…..Complainant

                                      V E R S U S

1.       Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd., SCO No.2463-2464, First Floor, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh, through its Manager.

2.       Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd., Second Floor, Dare House, 2, NSC Bose Road, Chennai – 600001 through its Managing Director.

……Opposite Parties

QUORUM:   P.L.AHUJA                                                  PRESIDENT

                   RAJINDER SINGH GILL                                MEMBER

ARGUED BY : Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Counsel for complainant.

                       Sh.Rajneesh Malhotra, Counsel for OPs.

PER P.L.AHUJA, PRESIDENT

1.                The short point involved in this complaint is whether OPs were justified in repudiating the claim of insurance filed by the complainant on account of accident of his vehicle in the absence of the route permit or not.

2.                The brief facts of this case are as under :-

                   The complainant Sh.Raj Kumar Bedi purchased a new Swaraj Mazda, goods carrying vehicle and got it insured with OPs from 21.3.2012 to 20.3.2013 vide certificate of insurance – Annexure C-1. The temporary registration number PB-32-AA-(T)-7719 was also obtained and the documents were deposited for getting permanent registration number, for which, a receipt – Annexure C-2 was issued by District Transport Officer, Mohali, which was valid upto 15.7.2012. Unfortunately the said vehicle met with an accident on 29.6.2012 near petrol pump kheti Gandian District Patiala, Punjab and was extensively damaged, for which, an FIR, copy of which is Annexure C-3 and English translation is Annexure C-3/A, was lodged. After the date of the accident, the complainant got the permanent registration number and certificate of the vehicle on 6.7.2012 and the number allotted to the vehicle vide R.C, copy of which is Annexure C-4, was PB-65-R-7769. The complainant also obtained a goods carriage permit of Government of Punjab, copy of which is Annexure C-5, for the said vehicle, valid from 17.7.2012 to 16.7.2017.  The complainant lodged a claim with OPs for paying a sum of Rs.1,47,011/- but the same was repudiated vide letter dated 24.9.2012 – Annexure C-9 by the OPs on the ground that the vehicle was plied on the road without route permit at the time of accident. The vehicle being a commercial vehicle was put to use in violation of Section 84 of the Motor Vehicles Act and in violation of the permit conditions. The complainant in his complaint has contended that the act and conduct of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

3.                OPs in their written statement have submitted that the goods carriage permit was issued from 17.7.2012 to 16.7.2017 by Regional Transport Authority, Patiala (Punjab) and on the date of accident i.e. 29.6.2012 the vehicle, which was a transport vehicle, was being driven without a necessary permit, therefore, no claim is payable.  

4.                The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5.                We have gone through the entire evidence and heard the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for the parties.

6.                The learned Counsel for the complainant has urged that the complainant had applied for permanent registration number of the said vehicle and after getting it, he applied for route permit. He has contended that the route permit could not be issued without obtaining the permanent registration number of the vehicle. The permanent registration number was issued on 6.7.2012 and, thereafter, the goods carriage permit was issued w.e.f. 17.7.2012. The learned Counsel for the complainant has contended that the complainant was not in a position to get any goods carriage permit on the date of accident, therefore, the repudiation of his claim by the OPs is illegal and arbitrary. He has cited New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Jhankar Singh, Revision Petition No.592 of 2005 decided by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on 19.5.2006 and has contended that even if it is assumed that the complainant was not having any route permit on the date of accident of the vehicle still OPs could certainly settle the claim of the complainant on non standard basis and make payment upto 75% of admissible claim to him.

7.                On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the OPs has argued that there was no bar upon the complainant to apply for the permit for driving the transport vehicle along with temporary number but the complainant allowed the vehicle to be driven without the permit in violation of the terms and conditions. He has also argued that the goods carriage permit was obtained by the complainant after 18 days of accident and since there was negligence on the part of complainant, therefore, nothing is payable to him even on non standard basis.

8.                After giving our thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions, we find considerable force in the arguments of the learned Counsel for the OPs and feel that the same must prevail. The learned Counsel for the complainant has not been able to draw our attention to any such provision that the complainant could not apply for the permit for driving a transport vehicle when he was having a temporary registration number of his goods carrying vehicle. Since the complainant allowed his driver to drive his goods carriage vehicle without the permit in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, we feel that claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated by the OPs vide letter dated 24.9.2012, copy of which is Annexure C-9.

9.                As far as the question of settlement of the claim of the complainant on non standard basis is concerned, in the judgment of the case New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Jhankar Singh (supra), it was mentioned that the following types of claim shall be considered as non standard and shall be settled as indicated below after recording the reasons :-

For breach of warranties conditions which do not involve any saving in premiums or any additional exposure of the insurers, such claims be considered as Standard Claims e.g. Route Permit.

10.              A bare perusal of the above clause in the General Regulations prepared by the Tariff Advisory Committee shows that the breach of route permit would be considered as standard claim. In other words, if the insurer is not having route permit then his claim cannot be settled on non standard basis. Apart from it, agreement of insurance is a bilateral agreement. The certificate of insurance – Annexure C-1 shows limitations as to use and it is clearly mentioned that the policy covers use only under a permit within the meaning of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Thus, there is a clear violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy by the complainant. The terms and conditions of the insurance policy are to be construed strictly and this Forum cannot grant any relief in case of any breach thereof.

11.              Consequently, we are of the opinion that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. As a result of the above discussion, the complaint is devoid of any merit and the same is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

12.              The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.