DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR,
KOLKATA-700 0144
C.C. CASE NO. _151_ OF ___2016
DATE OF FILING : 19.12.2016 DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT: 13.4.2018
Present : President : Ananta Kumar Kapri
Member(s) : Subrata Sarker & Jhunu Prasad
COMPLAINANT : 1.Sri Indranil Mridha, son of Ajoy Kumar Mridha of Vill. Sherpur Mridhapara, P.O Sherpur, P.S Usthi, Dist. South 24-Parganas,Pin-743503.
O.P/O.Ps : Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Amtala Branch, Murshed Market, Diamond Harbour Road, P.O Kanyanagar, Dist. South 24-Parganas, Pin-743398.
_______________________________________________________________________
J U D G M E N T
Sri Ananta Kumar Kapri, President
The facts leading to the filing of the instant case under section 12 of the C.P Act, 1986 by the complainant may be epitomized as follows.
The complainant as named above purchased one “Tata Sumo Gold” vehicle on payment of Rs. 7,53,892/- for carrying on transport business by way of self employment ,having taken loan from M/s Tata Motors Finance Ltd. he got the vehicle insured with the National Insurance Company i.e the O.P and policy was issued on 15.6.2015 with a limit of maximum liability of Rs.7,50,000/- for the vehicle only, valid from 15.6.2015 to 14.6.2016. He also applied on 6.5.2015 for necessary route permit. On 16.10.2015, unfortunately, the vehicle met an accident, which was informed to O.P on 20.10.2015. Complainant had to incur a cost of Rs.2,91,761/- for repair of the vehicle, which he paid to the workshop of Lexus Motors Ltd. Thereafter, a claim was lodged before the O.P for that amount; but the same was rejected for non-production of route permit. So, the complainant has approached this Forum with the filing of the instant case alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps and for issuing a direction to the O.P to pay reimbursement to the tune of Rs.2,91,761/- ,besides compensation to the tune of Rs.5,15,520/- for mental agony and harassment and litigation cost of Rs.8500/-. Hence, this case.
The O.P Insurance Company has been contesting the case by filing written statement ,wherein they have admitted that the complainant purchased the vehicle and the vehicle was also insured with them with validity from 15.6.2015 to 14.6.2016. The main plank of his objection is that complainant could not produce route permit as per terms and conditions of the policy and ,therefore, the claim of the complainant was repudiated .
Upon the averments of the parties following points are formulated for consideration.
POINT FOR DETERMINATION
- Is the O.P Insurance Company guilty of deficiency in service for repudiating the claim of the complainant?
- Is the complainant entitled to get the relief or reliefs as prayed for?
Both the parties have led their evidences. They have also filed questionnaire, replies and BNA which are kept in the record for consideration.
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point no.1 and 2:-
Already heard the submissions of Ld. Lawyers ,appearing for both the parties. Perused the complaint, written statement and the evidences led by the parties.
Considered all these.
In the instant case the dispute between the parties lies in a very narrow compass. The question a-begging an answer herein is whether the complainant is entitled to get any insurance claim for damage of his vehicle ,arising out of an accident, when he plied the vehicle without the route permit. The question is no more res-integra.Ld. Lawyer for the O.P Insurance company has referred the following decisions in support of his contention that the complainant is not entitled to get his claim satisfied when he has no route permit for plying the vehicle on the road. The decisions cited by him are as follows:-
- II(2016)CPJ 326 (NC) (National Insurance Company Vs. Deepak Jayoti Sharma).
- III(2016)CPJ 62 (NC)( Puneet Kumar Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd.
- II(2016)CPJ 53 (NC) (New India Assurance Co. Vs. Meenakshi Jarial).
In the case mentioned in serial no.1 above, the vehicle was used at the time of accident in contravention of Section 66(i) M.V Act and condition of policy, as the user had no route permit. It was held therein that the owner of the vehicle was not entitled to any amount under the policy.
In the case referred to in serial no.2 above, a transport vehicle was plied on public place without the requisite permit and thus the breach of condition of policy was caused. It was held therein that the plying vehicle on public place without permit is a punishable offence under the provision of M.V Act and complainant cannot be reimbursed even on non-standard basis. Repudiation of claim was ,therefore, held to be justified therein.
In the case referred to in Serial no.3 above, the vehicle did not have any registration ,nor had it any route permit on the date of accident. Violation of statutory provision was thus made and ,therefore, it was held therein that the claim cannot be allowed even to limited extent. The repudiation of claim was held to be justified therein.
Coming to the facts of the instant case ,it is found that the complainant had admittedly no route permit on the date of accident i.e on 16.10.2015. It is also undisputed fact that the vehicle was plied on public place without route permit. A copy of Insurance Certificate has been filed herein by the complainant, and on perusal of it, it is revealed that there is a clause, “Limitation as to use” inserted therein and this clause laid down that the policy will cover the use of the vehicle only under a permit within the meaning of the M.V Act.
Section 66 (1) of M.V Act laid down that no owner of a motor vehicle shall use or permit the use of vehicle as transport vehicle in any public place ,whether or not such vehicle is carrying any passenger or goods ,save in accordance with the conditions of a permit granted by Regional or State Transport Authority. Regards being had to the statutory provisions of the M.V Act and also the ratio decidendi pronounced in the judgment cited above, we do never feel any kind of hesitation to say that the complainant plied the vehicle in a public place on the date of the accident i.e on 16.10.2015 without having any route permit and that he has thereby violated the statutory provisions under Section 66(1) of M.V Act and also the policy conditions as enumerated under clause “Limitation to use” in Insurance Certificate.
That apart, the use of the vehicle in public place without having any route permit is also a punishable offence, which has been committed by the complainant. This being so, we do hold that the complainant is not entitled to get any kind of reimbursement from the O.P Insurance Company and the repudiation of his claim by the Insurance Company appears to be justified . There is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P Insurance Company by repudiating the claim of the complainant.
It has been argued on behalf of the complainant that the complainant applied for route permit much ahead of the accident, i.e on 6.5.2015 and also deposited the requisite fees on 5.8.2015 on the basis of letter dated 1.7.2015 issued by STA, W.B. It is the State Transport Authority ( STA) , as goes his submission, has committed the laches in so far as the issue of route permit is concerned. The complainant cannot be made a scapegoat for the laches of the said department.
Be that as it may, fact lies that complainant did not have any route permit on the date of accident and, therefore, he had no right to ply the vehicle in public place.
The aforesaid submission which has been made on behalf of the complainant seems to have cut no ice at all.
Point nos. 1 and 2 are thus disposed of accordingly.
In the result, the case fails.
Hence,
ORDERED
That the complaint case be and the same is dismissed on contest against the O.P Insurance Company without any cost.
Let a free copy of this order be given to the parties concerned at once.
President
I / We agree
Member Member
Dictated and corrected by me
President
The judgment in separate sheet is ready and is delivered in open Forum. As it is ,
ORDERED
That the complaint case be and the same is dismissed on contest against the O.P Insurance Company without any cost.
Let a free copy of this order be given to the parties concerned at once.
Member Member President
