KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
APPEAL No. 606/2010
JUDGMENT DATED:07-06-2011
PRESENT:
SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SHRI.M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER
M/s Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Vishnu vuildings, K.P.Vallon Road, : APPELLANT
Kadavanthara, Cochin.
(By Adv.Sri. Sreevarahan G.Satheesh)
Vs.
N.P. Arun Kumar,
Deviprabha, Chalad.P.O, : RESPONDENT
Kannur-14.
JUDGMENT
SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER
The above appeal is directed against the order dated:2nd September 2010 of the CDRF, Kannur in CC-35/09. The complaint therein was filed alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party/insurance company in repudiating the insurance claim preferred by the complainant with respect to the insured vehicle bearing registration No.KL-13 S 1331. The opposite party entered appearance and filed written version denying the alleged deficiency of service. It was contended that the insured vehicle was not having a valid permit at the time of the accident and there was violation of the policy condition. Thereby, the opposite party justified their action in repudiating the insurance claim.
2. Before the Forum below, the complainant was examined as PW1, Exts.A1 to A5 documents were marked on his side. On the side of the opposite party Exts.B1 to B3 documents were marked. On an appreciation of the evidence on record, the Forum below passed the impugned order directing the opposite party to pay the claim amount calculating the loss on the basis of the actual loss without deduction and depreciation. The Forum below has also awarded cost of Rs.1000/-. It is against the said order the present appeal is filed.
3. When this appeal was taken up for final hearing, there was no representation for the respondent/complainant, though notice was served on the respondent/complainant. So, this Commission was constrained to dispose of the present appeal by hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant. The counsel for the appellant submitted his arguments based on the grounds urged in the memorandum of the present appeal. He canvassed for the position that there was violation of the policy condition as the complainant used the insured vehicle without valid permit as provided under Sec.66 of the Motor Vehicle Act. Thus, the appellant prayed for setting aside the impugned order passed by the Forum below and for dismissal of the complaint in CC.35/09.
4. There is no dispute that the respondent/complainant insured his vehicle bearing registration No. KL-13 S 1331, Tata Indica car with the opposite party, M/s Reliance General Insurance Company Limited. The aforesaid policy was valid for the period from 14/1/2008 to 13/1/2009. Admittedly the insured vehicle met with an accident on 11/6/2008 and sustained damage. The respondent/complainant being the insured of the vehicle submitted his claim to indemnify him for the damages suffered by him. The appellant/opposite party repudiated the insurance claim on the sole ground that the insured vehicle was not having valid permit on the date of the accident and so there was violation of the policy condition on the part of the complainant/ insurer.
5. Admittedly, the insured vehicle was registered as a passenger carrying vehicle. Ext.A2 copy of the certificate of registration of the vehicle would reveal that fact. It is also an admitted fact that the policy was issued by the appellant/opposite party, insurance company for the said vehicle as a passenger carrying (commercial) vehicle. There can be no doubt about the fact that a passenger carrying vehicle can be plied on public road with a valid permit. Sec.66 of the MV Act 1988 stipulates the necessity and the requirement of a valid permit for plying a passenger carrying vehicle on public road. There can be no dispute about the fact that the accident on 11/6/2008 occurred on public road. There is no case for the respondent/complainant that the insured vehicle was having permit at the time of accident. Thus, it can very safely be concluded that the respondent/complainant used the insured vehicle without a valid permit as provided under Sec.66 of the MV Act 1988. Ext.A1 insurance policy would also speak about the requirement of valid permit to ply the vehicle on public road. It is specifically stated in the policy condition that the policy covers use only under a permit within the meaning of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Thus, it can be concluded without any doubt that the respondent/complainant violated the policy condition by using the vehicle without a valid permit. If that be so, the appellant/opposite party, insurance company is perfectly justified in repudiating the insurance claim.
6. The Forum below cannot be justified in allowing the complaint in CC.35/09 on the ground that at the time of the accident, the vehicle was not used as a passenger carrying vehicle, but it was used for the private use of the respondent/complainant (insured). It is a well settled position that a passenger carrying vehicle can be used only with a valid permit whether the vehicle is being used for carrying passengers or for private use. The Forum below has gone wrong in interpreting the provisions of the MV Act and in coming to the conclusion that the insured vehicle at the time of the accident was not in need of a valid permit. This State Commission have no hesitation to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Forum below. Hence the aforesaid order dated:2nd September 2010 passed by CDRF, Kannur in CC.35/09 is set aside ad the complaint therein is dismissed.
7. The aforesaid finding and conclusion of this commission is well fortified by the decision rendered by the Hon’ble National Commission in United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Dharam Raj reported in IV (2005) CPJ 115 (NC). It has been held by the National Commission that the complainant/insured is bound to get a valid permit for driving the vehicle whether the insured vehicle is being used for personal use or work or for carrying passengers. It is also held that the insurance policy represents a contract between the insurer and insured and that the insured has to act strictly in accordance with statutory limitations regarding use of the vehicle and that use of the vehicle in contravention of the Motor Vehicles Act and policy conditions empowers the insurer to repudiate the insurance claim.
In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order passed by the Forum below is set aside and the complaint in CC.35/09 on the file of CDRF, Kannur is dismissed. As far as the present appeal is concerned, the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.
M.V. VISWANATHAN: JUDICIAL MEMBER
M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER
VL.
