Heard learned counsel for the appellant. Counsel for respondent is absent.
2. Captioned appeal is filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the District Forum.
3. The case of the complainant in nutshell is that complainant being owner of the vehicle bearing Regd. No. OR-14L-0737 has purchased the policy from the opposite party covering the period from 8.3.2010 to 7.3.2011.
4. It is alleged inter alia that on 1.5.2010, the vehicle met with an accident at Champajharan and the matter was informed to the opposite party to settle the claim of Rs. 1,57,069/-. The opposite party denied to settle the claim as the policy condition has been violated. Challenging the repudiation of the claim, the complaint was filed.
5. The opposite party filed written version stating that the vehicle is used for transport purpose for which the complaint is not maintainable. He further submitted that vehicle has no valid road permit for which the policy condition has been violated. So there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
6. After hearing the both the parties, learned District Forum has passed the following impugned order:-
“Basing on all these facts observed above, this Forum is not satisfied that, the rejection of insurance claim of the complainant and accordingly the Ops are made liable jointly and severally for their deficient act and thereby direct all the Ops to pay the compounding amount of Rs.90,000/- (Rupees Ninety Thousand) only (as against the total calculative amount of Rs. 94,242/-) along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing of this case ie. 09.11.2010 till realization. Further the Ops are directed to pay Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand) only towards cost of this case to the complainant.
All the above orders are to be carried out by the Ops within two months from receiving of this order failing which 3% extra interest per annum shall be chargeable over and above all the amount from the date of this order till realization”
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned District Forum failed to exercise the jurisdiction by passing such impugned order. Learned District Forum should have considered the fact as required under Section 66(3) of the M.V.Act, since the vehicle has no route permit, the insurer rejected the claim. He relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Amrit Paul Singh & Anr. Vrs. Tata AIG General Insuranace Co. Ltd. & Ors. decided on 17th May, 2018 to support his claim. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned order being illegal be set aside.
8. Considered the submissions of the parties, perused the DFR and the impugned order.
9. It is a admitted fact that the vehicle has met with an accident. It is also not in dispute that after the occurrence, the opposite party has deputed a surveyor who found that at the time of inspection, the vehicle has no valid route permit.
10. The only question that arises as to whether the repudiation of claim is wrong and the order of the learned District Forum is improper on the ground that the vehicle has no road permit. The policy condition shows that the vehicle should have all the documents as per Section 66(3) of M.V.Act.
11. In the instant case, the road permit has not been produced. Learned District Forum has also observed that road permit is not necessary to get the compensation. The policy condition being the contents of the contract, the same cannot be violated. Moreover, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India have been pleased in Amrit Paul Singh & Anr. Vrs. Tata AIG General Insuranace Co. Ltd. & Ors. where Their Lordships have observed in paragraph 10 and 11 in the following manner.
“10. In the case at hand, the findings would show that the appellant no.2 did not have a permit for the vehicle. There is no dispute that the vehicle initially had a temporary registration and eventually the permanent registration. It is the stand of the appellants that the tribunal and the High Court did not appreciate that the chasis of the vehicle was sent to the body where the body of the truck was fabricated and when the vehicle was driven out of the work shop at which point of time it met with an accident. A contention has been made that the insurance policy was in force at the relevant time and, hence, the insurer is legally obliged to indemnify the insured. A distinction has to be made between ‘route permit’ and ‘permit’ in the context of Section 149 of the Act. Section 149(2) provides the grounds that can be taken a defence by the insurer. It enables the insurer to defend on the ground that there has been breach of a specific condition of the policy, namely, (i) a condition that excludes the use of the vehicle, - (a) for hire or reward, where the vehicle is, on the date of the contract of insurance, a vehicle not covered by a permit to ply for hire or reward, or (b) for organized racing and speed testing, or (c) for a purpose not allowed by the permit under which the vehicle is used, where the vehicle is a transport vehicle, or (d) without side-car being attached where the vehicle is a motor cycle. That apart, it also entitles the insurer to raise the issue pertaining to a condition that excludes driving by a named person or persons or by any person who is not duly licensed or by any person who has been disqualified for holding or obtaining a driving licence during the period of disqualification or that excludes liability for injury caused or contributed to by conditions of war, civil war, riot or civil commotion. A further defence that can be availed of by the insurer is that the policy is void on the ground that it has been obtained by non-disclosure of the material fact or by representation of act which is false in the material particular.
11. On a perusal of the written statement filed by the owner and the driver, it is evident that the factum of accident having been caused by the vehicle in question had been denied. That apart, there is also a denial of liability that relates to the manner in which the accident had occurred as alleged in the claim petition. It was the specific assertion of the insurer before the tribunal that the vehicle was running in contravention of the provisions of the Act, for it did not possess a route permit. The tribunal, on the basis of the materials brought on record to the effect that the route permit was issued on 27.02.2013 and the accident occurred on 19.02.2013, returned a finding that the vehicle in question did not have the permit. As stated earlier, the High Court has affirmed the same.”
12. With due regard to the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court, road permit is necessary as part of complainant of the policy condition to avail compensation in the case of accident. In the instant case, it is admitted fact that no road permit was there for the vehicle at the time of accident and hence the view taken by the learned District Forum is contrary to law. Therefore, the decision of learned District Forum is set aside.
13. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No cost.
DFR be sent back forthwith.
Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.
