BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD.
FA 1187 of 2009 against C.C. 189/2008, Dist. Forum, Vijayawada.
Between:
New India Assurance Company Ltd.
Ongole. *** Appellant/
. O.P.
And
Smt. T. Chandana
Poranki, Krishna Dist. *** Respondent/
Complainant
Counsel for the Appellant: M/s. Naresh Byrapaneni.
Counsel for the Respondent: Consumers Guidance Society
CORAM:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT.
&
SMT. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER
WEDNESDAY, THIS THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND ELVEN
ORAL ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice D. Appa Rao, President)
***
1) This is an appeal preferred by the opposite party insurance company against the order of the Dist. Forum directing it pay Rs. 2 lakhs together with interest and costs.
2) The case of the complainant in brief is that she being the owner of the vehicle bearing No. AP 27 T 9779 insured with the appellant insurance company covering the calendar year 2004-2005. She paid the premium to the agent. While so, it met with an accident on 18.7.2004 at 4.30 a.m. causing extensive damage to the vehicle, and the said fact was intimated to the insurance company which in turn appointed a surveyor who assessed the loss at Rs. 2 lakhs. The insurance company on one pretext or the other did not settle the claim despite complainant’s objections raised from time to time. Assailing its conduct the complainant filed the complaint claiming Rs. 2 lakhs towards compensation together with interest, compensation and costs.
3) The appellant insurance company resisted the case. While admitting that the complainant is the owner of the vehicle got insured it for the year 2004-2005 alleged that at the time when accident took place there was no valid permit. When it sought for vehicle permit by its letter dt. 13.5.2005 she did not furnish the same. Having not received the same they repudiated the claim on 19.8.2005. For a period of three year the complainant did not make any claim. The complaint is barred by limitation. Therefore it prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
4) The complainant in proof of her case filed her affidavit evidence and got Exs. A1 to A3 marked while the insurance company filed the affidavit evidence of its Manager and got Ex. B1 marked.
5) The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that the so called repudiation was not received by the complainant and the claim was intimated, and therefore directed the insurance company to pay the said amount together with interest and costs.
6) Aggrieved by the said decision, the insurance company preferred the appeal contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate either facts or law in correct perspective. It ought to have seen that the complaint was barred by limitation having filed the complaint after expiry of two years. Apart from it there was no valid permit by the time when the accident took place. Therefore it prayed that the complaint be dismissed
7) The point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the Dist. Forum is vitiated by mis-appreciation of fact or law?
8) During the course of hearing the insurance company filed I.A. No. 2379/2009 to receive un-claimed letters addressed to the complainant on 17.6.2005, 23.8.2005 and 26.8.2005 as additional evidence. They were received as additional evidence and assigned as Exs. B2 to B4.
9) It is an undisputed fact that the vehicle of the complainant was insured by the appellant for a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs. It is not in dispute that said vehicle was met with accident on 18.7.2004 at 4.30 a.m. The complainant had lodged his claim with the insurance company which said to have appointed a surveyor. For the reasons best known to the insurance company the said report was not filed. Importantly the complainant alleges that she did not receive any communication from the insurance company either accepting or repudiating her claim. Therefore she filed the complaint. Evidently the so called repudiation letters Exs. B2 to B4 were not received by the complainant. Obviously having waited sufficient time and as she did not receive any repudiation letter except letter dt. 14.8.2008 marked as Ex. A1. She filed the complaint on 15.9.2008. If one reckons the period of limitation from Ex. A1 dt. 14.8.2008 the complaint is undoubtedly within the limitation. However, the insurance company alleges that in fact it had sent the notices Exs. B2 to B4. Since there is no proof that the said fact was communicated to the complainant, it is evident from returned notices Exs. B2 to B4 said period cannot be reckoned but reckoned from the last letter which said to have been issued by it on 14.8.2008. Therefore, we are of the opinion that it is not barred by limitation.
10) The next contention that was taken was at the time when the accident took place it was not covered by valid permit. Evidently the vehicle is a transport vehicle. The permits are given in spells. Ex. A3 permit was given by RTA, Vijaywada to ply from 5.7.2004 to 17.7.2004 and continuation permit was issued under Ex. A2 from 18.7.2004 to 20.7.2004. The contention of the insurance company is that since the accident took place at 4.30 a.m. on 18.7.2004 and one should reckon this permit period effective from office hours from 10.30 hours on 18.7.2004. The learned counsel for the complainant contends that whenever permits are issued by putting its dates. It should be assumed that permit is continuous. At any rate, the word ‘day’ in its natural, plain and popular meaning includes the commencing after 12.00 a.m in the preceding date and includes 24 hours.
11) In Prem’s Judiciary Dictionary, Bharat Law Publications 1993 Jaipur, Vol-I the word ‘day’ is defined as not an aggregation of hours, minutes or seconds. When it is construed as unit of time, day is understood as a calendar day. A day is a space of time between two successive midnights. Day must in the absence of anything to the contrary in the text be taken to mean duration of 24 hours and not 12 hours.
He also relied a dicta laid down in Goldsmith Co. Vs. West Metro, Rail Co. 1904 I K.B.I the court held that it is well known maxim that the law takes no notice of the fraction of day as it denotes a period from midnight to midnight.
12) Simply because the permit was said to have been issued after 10.30 hours on 18.7.2004 it must be held that when the accident took place at 4.30 a.m. there was no valid permit to ply the vehicle. The insurance company is obviously intends to make out one ground or the other in order to deny the just claim of the complainant. It is not as though policy is not covered when the accident took place. What all it contends is that at the time when the accident took place there was no valid permit to ply the vehicle. A combined reading Exs. A2 & A3 would undoubtedly show that continuously there has been permit right from 5.7.2004 to 20.7.2004 during which time the accident took place. Even assuming that permit was received by the complainant at 10.30 a.m. on 18.7.2004 still it cannot be said that there was no valid permit. The rules under the M.V. Act enjoin the transport authorities to issue permits from a particular day to a particular day without mentioning the timings. It does not mean that during the intervening night of 17/18-7-2004 there was no permit. Having noted that the permit was both on 17/18-7-2004 it cannot be assumed that there was no valid permit at the time when the accident took place. The insurance company was bound to pay the amount for the loss sustained by the complainant. We do not see any mis-appreciation of fact or law by the Dist. Forum in this regard. We do not see any merits in the appeal.
13) In the result the appeal is dismissed with costs computed at Rs. 5,000/-. Time for compliance four weeks.
1) _______________________________
PRESIDENT
2) ________________________________
MEMBER
11/05/2011
*pnr
