BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.194 of 2015

Date of Instt. 08.05.2015

Date of Decision :03.09.2015

Narinder Gupta son of Late Shri Ram Sarup Gupta, Proprietor M/s Kamal Box Factory, A-3, Industrial Estate Development Colony, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant Versus

National Insurance Company Ltd, D.O.-II, 20, G.T.Road, Jalandhar through its Manager/Sr.Divisonal Manager/Principal Officer.

.........Opposite party.

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.Atul Malhotra Adv., counsel for complainant.

Sh.RS Arora Adv., counsel for opposite party.

Order

J.S.Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite party on the averments that the complainant is the sole proprietor and sole owner of firm M/s Kamal Box Factory, A-3, Industrial Estate Development Colony, Jalandhar. Complainant had purchased a truck in the name of his firm M/s Kamal Box Factory and complainant is the registered owner of Tata Truck make 2012 bearing registration certificate No.PB08CH-3893 which was fully insured with opposite party against all perils particularly accidents, theft etc. Complainant had got insured the said vehicle from opposite party vide insurance policy bearing No.404300/31/14/6300000653 valid from 1.6.2014 to 31.5.2015 after payment of the due premium. That the said truck of complainant was also having valid and legal national permit for goods transport and was legally and validly authorized to transport goods through out territory of India till 28.6.2015 in continuation to earlier route permit which was valid till 28.6.2014. The route permit was issued by the Transport Department, Punjab after receipt of proper and valid fee as per rules within time and before expiry of the earlier route permit. Unfortunately during the pendency of the said insurance policy i.e on 15.7.2014, the said truck of complainant met with an accident near Banihal, Jammu & Kashmir and suffered total loss as the said vehicle fell about 300 feet down. Complainant had immediately informed and requested opposite party to settle the claim and make the payment of the claim and supplied all of the documents as and when demanded by opposite party and there was no delay on behalf of complainant in supplying any of the documents. Despite the receipt of all of the required documents from him, opposite party failed to settle his claim within time period as prescribed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and further failed to make the payment of the claim to him and had repudiated the claim illegally, arbitrarily and without any justification. When opposite party failed to settle or make the payment of the claim of the said vehicle of complainant, complainant was constrained to issue a legal notice dated 22.11.2014 through Sh.Atul Malhotra Advocate, Jalandhar but even after the receipt of the said legal notice, the opposite party has failed either to settle or make the payment of the claim to complainant. After receipt of the said legal notice, opposite party approached complainant and offered settlement of claim with complainant. The opposite party assured the complainant that if the complainant gives consent in the form of a writing, opposite party shall decide the claim of the complainant within fifteen days. As such under duress of financial constraints, complainant gave a writing/ consent to opposite parties for obtaining the salvage and for settlement of claim. But even after assuring complainant for settlement of claim, opposite party has failed to settle the claim of the complainant till present date. As such, complainant was constrained to issue another legal notice dated 1.1.2015 through counsel for canceling all of consents given by complainant to opposite party for settlement of claim and for not taking the salvage. Complainant cancelled all of the consents and also directed opposite party to keep the salvage and make the payment of claim and compensation for Rs.19 Lacs. The opposite party repudiated the claim illegally, belatedly and arbitrarily vide letter dated 18.3.2015 on the ground that the truck was not having valid route permit to enter Jammu & Kashmir state on the date of accident i.e on 15.7.2014. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite party to make him the payment of claim amount of Rs.19 Lacs. He has also claimed litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, opposite party appeared and filed a written reply pleading that M/s Kamal Box Factory, which is a commercial house with sale tax No.27898611, is doing the business of manufacturing paper sheets, rolls and boxes specially the Apple Boxes. For the transportation of its manufactured goods etc, the firm purchases the trucks. One of the trucks of M/s Kamal Box Factory bearing registration No.PB08CH-3893 met with an accident on 15.7.2014. The truck was insured with the opposite party and the insured raised the claim for compensation. The matter was put to investigation and survey. One material fact which came to light was that the route permit of the vehicle had expired on 28.6.2014 and the accident on 15.7.2014 being in close proximity of the expired permit, gave rise to serious investigating on the aspect of the validity of the renewed permit. Later, the oral information received from the sources was that the insured had applied for the renewal of the permit on 2.8.2014 but no office was ready to give it in writing to the investigator. The old national route permit of the complainant had expired on 28.6.2015. The complainant was not the holder of the route permit on 15.7.2014 i.e the date of accident. He did not make the payment for renewal before the expiry of the old permit but on 2.8.2014 when the old permit had expired on 28.6.2014. It is submitted that obtaining the national permit by the complainant, of the totally lifeless vehicle, is nothing short of one's going to the hospital, paying the fee, asking the doctor there for the issuance of a fitness certificate for some XY for his joining the office, when XY was actually dead and the doctor issues the fitness certificate. It denied other material averments of the complainant.

3. In support of his complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavits Ex.CA and Ex.CB alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C42 and closed evidence.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party has tendered affidavits Ex.OA and Ex.OB alongwith copies of documents Ex.O1 to Ex.O7 and closed evidence.

5. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsels for both the parties.

6. The facts involved in the present case are not much disputed. It is not disputed that truck of the complainant was insured with opposite party insurance company for the period from 1.6.2014 to 31.5.2015. Ex.C2 is copy of insurance policy. The IDV i.e Insured Declared Value of the vehicle was Rs.11 Lac. It is not disputed that truck of the complainant met with an accident on 15.7.2014 in the area of Jammu & Kashmir. It is also not disputed that the route permit of the above said vehicle had expired on 28.6.2014 i.e before the accident on 15.7.2014 and the complainant got renewed the route permit subsequently. He deposited the necessary tax on 2.8.2014 and route permit was renewed retrospectively by Regional Transport Authority. Ex.C4 is copy of national permit and it was valid till 28.6.2015. Ex.C3 is another copy of national permit which was valid till 28.6.2014. So national permit was validated retrospectively by the Regional Transport Authority. As per route permit Ex.C4, it was valid on the date of accident i.e 15.7.2014. Although it was revalidated retrospectively from 28.6.2014 by the competent authority notwithstanding the fact that necessary fee for renewal of earlier route permit has been deposited after the accident. If this route permit is considered valid, it means that at the time of accident, the vehicle in question was having a valid route permit. Under section 81(3), the Regional Transport Authority or State Transport Authority is competent to entertain the application for the renewal of a permit after last date specified in sub-section 2 if it satisfied that the applicant was prevented by good and sufficient cause from making an application within the time specified. Sub-section (5) to section 81 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 laid down as under:-

"(5) Where a permit has been renewed under this section after the expiry of the period thereof, such renewal shall have effect from the date of such expiry irrespective of whether or not a temporary permit has been granted under clause (d) of section 87, and where a temporary permit has been granted, the fee paid in respect of such temporary permit shall be refunded".

7. So as per above sub-section, where a permit has been renewed after the expiry of the period thereof, such renewal shall have effect from the date of such expiry irrespective of whether or not a temporary permit has been granted under clause (d) of section 87. Ex.O4 is report of survey-or and loss assessor produced by the opposite party itself, wherein it is mentioned as under:-

"As per instructions received from your office for clarification of route permit undersigned visited the issuing authority and submitted the application. Inspite of my several visits, report was issued on 21.10.2014 by the issuing authority.

Details are as under:-

Returned in original with the remarks that validity of NP permit for load carrier vehicle is issued from the office server of Ministry of Road Transport & Highways, New Delhi after depositing a sum of Rs.16500/- in State Bank of India. Date of renewal is considered from the date of expiry of the permit & no gap is considered in these permits i.e retrospective date is considered".

8. So even according to the verification report of route permit Ex.O4 given by surveyor and loss assessor of the opposite party, date of renewal is considered from the date of expiry of the permit and no gap is considered in these permits i.e retrospective date is considered. To the same effect is report Ex.O5 given by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jalandhar. The opposite party insurance company has repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that the complainant was not having a valid route permit for the State of Jammu & Kashmir on the date of accident. So, after the issuance or renewal of route permit this ground was not available to the insurance company. The competent authority was empowered to renew the permit even after expiry of the earlier permit but as already discussed above, such renewal is retrospective and no gap is considered in these permit. So in our opinion, the opposite party insurance company was not justified in repudiating the claim of the complainant on the above said ground. Ex.O7 is consent letter produced by the opposite party insurance company whereby the complainant agreed to retain the salvage for Rs.3,64,000/- and agreed to accept Rs.7,35,000/- on net of salvage basis. Although the opposite party did not act upon this consent letter and repudiated the claim of the complainant but still we feel that it is quite reasonable if the complainant is asked to retain salvage and is granted Rs.7,35,000/- on net of salvage basis.

9. In view of above discussion, the present complaint is accepted and opposite party insurance company is directed to pay Rs.7,35,000/- on net of salvage basis to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of repudiation of the claim of the complainant till the date of payment. However, it is clarified that interest amount is being granted by way of compensation. The complainant is also awarded Rs.3000/- on account of litigation expenses. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

03.09.2015 Member Member President