BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

CACHAR :: SILCHAR

Con. Case No. 30 of 2015

            Mrs. Rafiya Begam Barbhuiya,

            Vill- Harinagar Part-I, P.O- Haringar Part- II

            Dist. – Cachar, Assam, Pin- 788805………………………………         Complainant.         

                                                                        -V/S-

1. The National Insurance Co. Ltd.,

      3, Middleton Street, Prafulla Chandra Sen Sarani

      Kolkata, West Bengal - 700071,                                                                    O.P No.1.

2. The Chairman Cum Managing,

      The National Insurance Co. Ltd.      

      3, Middleton Street, Prafulla Chandra Sen Sarani

            Kolkata, West Bengal - 700071,                                                                    O.P No.2.

3. The General Manager cum Director,

      The National Insurance Co. Ltd.      

      3, Middleton Street, Prafulla Chandra Sen Sarani

      Kolkata, West Bengal - 700071,                                                                    O.P No.3.

4. The Regional Manager,

      The National Insurance Co. Ltd.

      2^nd & 3^rd Floor, Lohia Mansion,

      G.S Road, Bhangagarh, Guwahati,

      Kamrup, Assam-781005

5. The Divisional Manager,

      The National Insurance Co. Ltd.

      Capital Travels Building, Club Road, Silchar

      Cachar, Assam-788001

6. The Branch Manager,

      The National Insurance co. Ltd. Capital Travels Building,

      Club Road, Silchar, Cachar, Assam- 788001.

7. The Branch Manager, Tata Motors Finanace Ltd.

      Branch Office- Holding No,16, Ground Floor,

      Beside Surana Motors, N.S. Avenue, Silchar

      Cachar, Assam-788005.

Present: -                                Sri Bishnu Debnath,                                                    President,

District Consumer Forum,

                                                Cachar, Silchar.                                            

                                                            Sri Kamal Kumar Sarda,                                Member,

                                                            District Consumer Forum,

                                                            Cachar, Silchar.                                            

Appeared: - Ms. Rudrani Biswas & Shrubrojyoti Dutta Advocate’s for the complainant.

                      Mr. Debasish Som, Advocate for the O.P.No.1 to O.P.No.6.

                      Ms. Sharmistha Dutta, Advocate for the O.P.No.7.

                                                 Date of Evidence                              28-03-2017

                         Date of written argument                07-07-2017, 05-12-2017

                         Date of oral argument                     01-09-2018

                         Date of judgment                             21-09-2018

JUDGMENT AND ORDER

                              Sri Bishnu Debnath,

1. Mrs. Rafiya Begam Barbhuiya brought this case under the provision of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against National Insurance Company Ltd. and its 5 (Five) more officer including its Divisional Manager, Silchar for award of compensation and sum insured of her  stolen vehicle bearing Registration No. AS-24/C-2738.
2. Brief facts:-

The complainant purchased the aforesaid vehicle with financial aid of Tata Motors Finance Ltd. represented by its Branch Manager, Silchar. Accordingly, the said Tata Tripper was insured with National Insurance Company Ltd. The period of insurance was from 19-12-2012 to 18-12-2013. Sum insured was Rs.10,90,491/- (Rupees Ten Lac Ninety Thousand Four Hundred Ninety one) only. But on 19-03-2013 the said vehicle has been stolen away from road side of NH 44 at Katirail. Accordingly, lodged ehajahar and informed the Insurance Co. about the incidence of theft. The police registered KatigarahP/S Case No. 134/2013 U/S 379 IPC and submitted FR. The Ld. CJM accepted the FR vide order dated 20-09-2014 of GR Case No. 1018/2013 corresponding to Katigarah P/S Case No. 134/2013. As the O.P did not settle the claim on several corresponding, so, the instant complaint lodged.

3. The O.P Nos.1 to 6 in their joint W/S admitted the fact that the claim has been repudiated vide letter No. 200501 Motor/Tech/16/106 dated 10-05-2016. But the plea of repudiation is that the complainant lodged FIR with inordinate delay and violated the terms and conditions of insurance policy. They have stated very specifically that the vehicle was used without a permit at the relevant time. The O.P No.7 also submitted W/S with no objection.
4. During hearing the complainant submitted deposition supporting affidavit and exhibited documents including a permit. The O.P Nos.1 to 6 also submitted deposition of Sri Suroj Kr. Das and exhibited many documents including permit Verification Report.
5. Heard argument of both sides’ counsels and perused the evidence on record and written argument of both sides’ counsels.
6. In this case it is concluded in view of evidence on record that the insured vehicle bearing registered No. AS-24/C-2738 has been stolen during the force of insurance policy No.55270031126300045170 and police failed to recover it. But the plea of the O.P is that at the time of alleged theft there was no valid permit, for which, as per terms and conditions of insurance policy, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. The complainant also failed to produce any valid permit except a permit vide Ext-3. The said Ext-3 is not a valid permit because date of permit has been expired on 29-04-2012, whereas the vehicle has been stolen on 19-03-2013 i.e. after 10 months 20 days of expiring of the permit.
7. From the evidence on record, I do not find any renewal document of permit. However, the O.P exhibited permit verification report vide Ext-J. As per that report the permit has been renewed after the date of stealing of the vehicle i.e., on 22-03-2013 whereas the DTO Hailakandi in his letter dated 14-10-2015 very specifically stated that vehicle is required to produce at the time of issuing of permit. The complainant failed to explain as how after the date stealing the vehicle, the permit has been renewed without producing the vehicle. Nevertheless, it is the moot point to decide as whether physical production of vehicle is mandatory but to decide as whether that was valid permit at the relevant time of theft of the vehicle.
8. No evidence is found in that aspect in the case record. As such after hearing both sides’ counsels and perused of materials on record, I am of opinion that at the time of stolen of the vehicle there was no permit of that vehicle. So, the vehicle was kept on the NH 44 at the time of stealing, itself is a violation of the policy conditions in view of Section 66(I) of the M.V Act 1986.
9. However, during hearing the Ld. Advocate of the complainant tried to convince this District Forum that though the complainant violated the policy condition but when stealing of the vehicle is establish, the insurance company is liable to pay compensation as per rule of non-standard basis. To give force to his submission he referred the case law of Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nitin Khandelwal Appeal (Civil) 3409/2008. The Supreme Court in that case upheld the decision of National Commission passed in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Gian Singh 2006 CTJ221. As per the decision of the Nation Commission in that case it was held that in case of violation of condition of the policy as to the nature of use of the vehicle, the claim ought to be settled on non-standard basis if the complainant obtained comprehensive policy.
10. The guideline for non-standard basis has been set out by the National Commission in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Narayan Prasad Appaprasad Patak (2006) CPJ 144(NC) as below:

Sl. No.                 Description                                                                         Percentage of settlement

1. Under declaration of licensed                                                              Deduct 3 years difference in                                                         carrying capacity.                                                                                 from the amount of claim or deduct 25 % of claim amount,                                                                                                                      whichever is higher.

2. Overloading of vehicles beyond licensed carrying                               Pay claims not exceeding 75% of capacity.admissible claim.

3. Any other breach of warranty/ condition of policy                               Pay upto 75% of admissible claim. including              limitation as to use.

11. In this instant case, in view of evidence on record is to concluded that the complainant purchased a package premium policy which means he obtained a comprehensive policy. So, in this case applying the case law referred herein above, the complainant is entitled compensation in spite of using the vehicle without valid permit on the non-standard basis.
12. As such she is entitled sum insured upto 75% of the declared value of Rs.10,90,491/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Ninety thousand Four Hundred Ninety One) only as per procedure of non-standard basis subject to statutory depreciation if any and also entitled compensation for mental agony of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousands) only and proceeding cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousands) only.
13. The O.P Nos.1 to 6 are both severally and jointly liable to pay the aforesaid awarded amount within 45 days from today. In default, interest at the rate of 10% per annum to be added with the total awarded amount.
14. With the above, this case is disposed of on contest. Supply free certified copy of Judgment to the parties. Given under my hand and seal of this District Forum on this the 21^st day of September, 2018.