Sri B.NARAYANAPPA,

     President

1.      This is a remanded matter remanded by Hon’ble State Commission in Appeal No.1863/2017 dated 06.09.2019 by setting aside the order passed by this Forum in CC-1554/2016 dated 11.08.2017 to reconsider the issue afresh and dispose of the matter in accordance with law.

2.      The complainant Sri. Vinay. J has filed the complaint against the opposite party No.1 SBI General Insurance Company, Mysore.  Opposite party No.2 SBI General Insurance Company, Mumbai praying to direct the opposite parties to pay the amount of Rs.4,47,623/- and litigation expenses.

3. The brief facts are that:-

The complainant has purchased new Toyota Etios GD(M) vehicle from M/s Balaji Auto Enterprises Mysore Pvt. Ltd., by raising loan from SBM and it was given registration No.KA09/TR006012-2015-16 on 12.02.2016 and the said vehicle was duly insured with opposite party vide policy No.3908023 valid from 13-02-2016 to12-02-2017 and the vehicle was given to the complainant on 12.02.2016 which is commercial vehicle and necessary permit was also issued to ply the same on road.Unfortunately on 20.02.2016 while the said vehicle was taking to Bangalore met with an accident and the vehicle was damaged and the same was brought to M/s. Balaji Auto Enterprises, Mysore Private Limited and got it repaired and the repair charges bill was paid by the complainant and he sent request to opposite party to pay the repair charges, but the same was rejected on the ground that there was no valid permit to the said vehicle and it is further contended that when the complainant was taking vehicle to Bangalore for registration the accident occurred.Thus denial of the claim of the complainant by opposite party is unjustified.Therefore the complainant got issued legal notice to opposite party calling upon the opposite party to settle claim of Rs.1,80,623/-.The opposite party instead of complying legal demand sent untenable reply.Hence, this complaint.

4.      After registration of this complaint, notices were ordered to be issued to opposite parties in spite of service of notice upon opposite party No.1 it does not turned up.  Hence, it was placed exparte.

5.      The opposite party No.2 in response to notice appeared before this Commission through its counsel and filed version contending that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  Hence, the same is liable to be dismissed and further contended that the purchase of Tata Etios GD (M) vehicle temporary registration bearing No.KA-09-60/2/15-16 by availing loan from SBM are not within the knowledge of opposite party No.2 but admitted that opposite party No.2 issued valid commercial vehicle insurance policy bearing registration No.000000003908023 from13.02.2016 to 12.02.2017 and denied that necessary permit was issued to vehicle to ply on road and contends that opposite party No.2 came to know that on 20.02.2016 the vehicle met with an accident and the complainant submitted claim to opposite party and further admits that the complainant left the vehicle with M/s Balaji Auto Enterprises, Hootagalli, Mysore for repair and denied that opposite party No.2 given approval for repair and further denied that the complainant vehicle had permit as on the date of accident and submitted that on the date of accident the vehicle was used without valid permit from concerned authority thereby violating the terms and conditions of the policy and relied upon section 66 of MV Act-necessity for permits and contended that the complainant is not entitle for amount claimed and sending of letter dated 18.04.2016 to complainant intimating the repudiation of claim, for all these reasons prays to dismiss the complaint.

6.      The complainant had filed affidavit in support of his case and produced certain documents.  Opposite party No.2 also filed affidavit and produced certain documents and the complainant has filed written arguments.

7.      This Commission after going through the complaint averments, affidavit of complainant and documents relied upon by the complainant  and version of opposite party No.2 and affidavit had come to the conclusion that the complaint is liable to be dismissed.  Accordingly dismissed the complaint on 11.08.2017.

8.      Aggrieved by the order of dismissal of this Commission dated 11.08.2017 the complainant had preferred appeal No.1863/2017 before the Hon’ble State Commission, the Hon’ble State Commission while passing orders in appeal No.1863/2017 has observed that the District Forum having dismissed the complaint by relying upon the decision rendered by the Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Puneeth Kumar V/s National Insurance Company Limited and others reported in III (2016) CPJ 62 (NC) observed that plying a transport vehicle on a public place without a valid permit,  amounts to breach of condition of policy and the same is punishable under the provisions of MV Act and further observed that the vehicle being a commercial vehicle was not supposed to run on road without a valid permit. Though it was insured and the same was in force the claim for damages caused to the vehicle was rightly repudiated by opposite party on the ground of violation of section 66-necessity for permits of the Motor Vehicle Act.

9.      And further observed that the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that section 66 of MV Act speaks about necessity for permit and section 66(3) also says that in which special circumstances, the permit is not necessary and section 66(3)(1) of MV Act is not applicable to the facts of the present case.  Further section 66(3)(K) reads that “to any transport vehicle which was temporary registered under section 43 while proceeding empty to any place for registration of the vehicle. Unfortunately the accident occurred when the appellant was coming from Mysore to Bangalore. In the circumstances the law itself exempted the necessity of permit to run the vehicle. Thus the vehicle was met with an accident in the course of movement of temporary registration and it was not used for commercial purposes the stand taken by opposite party that complainant had violated the policy terms and conditions under the circumstances the Hon’ble State Commission set aside the orders of dismissal of this Commission in CC-1554/2016 dated 11.08.2017 and remitted back the matter to this Forum to reconsider the issue afresh and dispose of the matter in accordance with law.

10. After remand of this matter by the Hon’ble State Commission notices were ordered to be issued to both the parties.  The complainant counsel was present.  In spite of service of notice upon opposite party Nos.1 and 2, they does not turned up.  Hence, they were placed exparte.

11.  On 30.06.2020 the complainant counsel submits that the matter is likely to be settled but no settlement was reported.  The complainant counsel has filed written arguments.  Heard oral arguments of complainant also and the case was posted for orders.

12.     The points that would arise for our consideration are as under:-  

1. Whether the complainant proves the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties in not settling the claims made under the policy and thereby he is entitled for the reliefs?
2.  What order?

13.          Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

       Point No.1 :-Partly in the affirmative;

      Point No.2 :- As per final order for the following

:: R E A S O N S ::

14.          Point No.1:-  It is pertinent to note that this Commission after hearing arguments of both the parties and perusing the records complaint averments, affidavit of complainant, documents produced on behalf of complainant and version of opposite party and affidavit of opposite party and the documents produced on behalf of opposite party come  to the conclusion that the vehicle purchased by the complainant was carrying temporary registration and was not having a valid permit to run the vehicle.  The vehicle being a commercial vehicle was not supposed to run on road without a valid permit, though the vehicle was insured and the same was in force, the claim for damages to the vehicle was rightly repudiated by the opposite party on the ground of violation of section 66, necessity for permits of the Motor Vehicle Act and by relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in Puneeth Kumar V/s National Insurance Company Limited reported in III (2016) CPJ 62 (NC) and dismissed the complaint on 11.08.2017.

15.      Aggrieved by the order of dismissal of this Commission dated 11.08.2017 the complainant preferred appeal No.1863/2017 before the Hon’ble State Commission, the Hon’ble State Commission while disposing of the appeal has observed that the District Forum having dismissed the complaint by relying upon the decision rendered by the Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Puneeth Kumar V/s National Insurance Company Limited and others reported in III(2016) CPJ 62 (NC) observed that “plying a transport vehicle on a public place without a valid permit, amounts to breach of condition of the policy and the same is punishable under the provisions of MV Act.  Further observed that the vehicle being a commercial vehicle was not supposed to run on road without a valid permit.  Though the vehicle was insured and the same was in force, the claim for damages caused to the vehicle was rightly repudiated by the opposite party on the ground of violation of section 66-necessity for permits of the Motor Vehicle Act.

16.      Per contra the learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that section 66 of the MV Act speaks about necessity for permit and section 66(3) also says that in which special circumstances, the permit is not necessary and section 66(3) (1) of MV Act is not applicable to the facts of the present case.  Further submitted that the section 66(3)(k) reads that “To any transport vehicle which was temporarily registered under section 43 while proceeding empty to any place for the purpose of registration of the vehicle”.  Unfortunately the accident occurred when the appellant was coming for registration from Mysore to Bangalore.  In the circumstances the law itself exempted the necessity of permit to run the vehicle.  Thus the vehicle met with an accident in the course of movement of temporary registration and it was not used for commercial purpose.  The stand taken by the opposite party insurance company was that the complainant had violated the policy terms and conditions.  In the circumstances, matter is remanded to the District Forum to re-consider the issue by examining the documents produced by both the parties and allowed the appeal and set aside the orders of this Forum dated 11.08.2017 passed in CC-1554/2016 to re-consider the issue afresh and dispose of the matter in accordance with law.

17.      After remand of this complaint by the Hon’ble State Commission opportunities were given to both the parties.  The complainant counsel was present, but  opposite party Nos.1 and 2  remained absent.  The complainant has filed written arguments and we have heard the oral arguments of complainant.

18.      The learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently argued as per the contention taken in the complaint, affidavit of complainant and documents relied upon by the complainant.

19.      It is not in dispute that the complainant has purchased the New vehicle Toyota Etios GD (M) make 2016 bearing chassis No.MBJB49BT9001253030216, engine No.IND1446657 on 12.02.2016 from Palace Toyota  M/S Balaji Auto Enterprises, Mysore Private Limited for Rs.7,62,779/- by obtaining loan from SBM, Kuvempunagar branch, Mysore and the same was temporarily registered by registration authority, RTO, Mysore west and given temporary registration No.KA09-TR-6012/15-16 valid up to 12.03.2016 and it is also not in dispute that the said vehicle was insured with opposite party No.1 and the opposite party No.1 had issued commercial vehicle passenger carrying package policy/certificate-cum policy schedule bearing policy certificate No.0000000003908023 dated 12.02.2016 valid from 13.02.2016 to 12.02.2017 mid night by collecting total premium of Rs.45,098/-.

20.      And it is also not in dispute that on 20.02.2016 the said vehicle met with an accident while taking the same to Bangalore for registration and was damaged and the factum of accident was informed to concerned authority/opposite party No.1 and it is also not in dispute that the complainant brought the said vehicle to M/s Balaji Auto Enterprises Mysore Pvt. Ltd., Hootagalli Industrial area for effecting repairs and after approval by the opposite parties  the same was repaired.  It is further case of the complainant that at the time of accident the vehicle was temporarily registered and the insurance policy issued by opposite party in respect of the said vehicle was in force.  Therefore the complainant sent claim form to opposite party requesting to pay repair charges, but the opposite party rejected the claim of the complainant on the ground that there was no valid permit to the said vehicle.  It is further case of the complainant that the complainant possess valid effective driving license and all other necessary required documents including permit at the time of accident and there is no violation of terms and conditions of the policy of the insurance and in spite of temporary registration was valid up to 12.03.2016 and badge number was also given to drive the said vehicle and the accident had occurred while taking the vehicle to Bangalore for registration.  But the opposite party in spite of the insurance policy was valid on the date of accident had rejected the claim of complainant to settle the repair charges of Rs.1,80,623/- as per the bill dated 24.03.2016 in spite of issuance of legal notice to opposite party on the ground that the vehicle in question was not having permit on the date of accident.

21.      The opposite party in the version has admitted the purchase of Toyota Etios GD temporary registration No.KA09-TR-6012/15-16 by the complainant by availing loan from SBM and also admitted that opposite party had issued valid commercial insurance policy No.0000000003908023 valid from 13.02.2016 to 12.02.2017 and also admits that the said vehicle was met with an accident on 20.02.2016 and the complainant left the vehicle with M/s Balaji Auto Enterprises Mysore Pvt. Ltd., Hootagalli, Mysore for repairs and the claim made to opposite party and contended that the opposite party collected necessary documents and appointed independent IRDA Licensed Surveyor who assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.1,27,195/- and admitted repudiation of claim of the complainant by issuing letter dated 18.04.2016 on the ground that on the date of accident the vehicle was used without valid permit and contended that the complainant violated section 66 of MV Act necessity for permits.

22.      We have carefully gone through the records, complaint averments, insurance policy issued by opposite party in respect of vehicle in question valid from 13.02.2016 to 12.02.2017 and temporary registration certificate issued by registering authority, RTO west Mysore bearing temporary registration No.KA09-TR-6012/15-16 valid up to 12.03.2016 and the sales certificate dated 12.02.2016 issued by Palace Toyota M/s Balaji Auto Enterprises Mysore Private Limited and the claim application made by the complainant to opposite party and the letter issued by opposite party to the complainant dated 18.04.2016 repudiating the claim of complainant and copy of legal notice issued by complainant to opposite party and the bill issued by Toyota M/s Balaji Auto Enterprises Private Limited towards repair charges of the vehicle for Rs.1,80,623/- and the correspondences letters made by opposite party with complainant and other documents produced by opposite party similar to the documents produced by complainant.

23.      It is important to note here that the opposite party had repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that as on the date of the accident the vehicle in question was used without valid permit and thereby violated section 66 of MV Act necessity for permits.

24.      This Commission while passing final order dated 11.08.2017 also opined that the vehicle being commercial vehicle was not suppose to run on road without a valid permit.  Though the vehicle was insured and the same was in force the claim for the damages caused to the vehicle was rightly repudiated by the opposite party on the ground of violation of section 66-necessity of permits of Motor Vehicle Act and thereby dismissed the complaint.

25.      The Hon’ble State Commission in appeal No.1863/2017 which was disposed off on 06.09.2019 preferred by the complainant has clearly observed that section 66 of Motor Vehicle Act speaks about necessity for permits and section 63(3) says that in which special circumstances, the permit is not necessary and section 66(3) (1) of MV act is not applicable to the facts of the present case and section 66(3) (k) exempted the necessity of permits to run any transport vehicle which was temporarily registered under section 43 while proceeding empty to any place for the purpose of registration of the vehicle and the vehicle  met with an accident in the course of movement under temporary registration and it was not used for commercial purpose and remanded the matter to re-consider the issue.
26.      Now let us examine section 66 of MV Act necessity for permits.

27.      Section 66 of MV Act reads thus; (1) No owner of a Motor vehicle shall use or permit the use of the vehicle as a transport vehicle in any pubic place whether or not such vehicle is actually carrying any passengers or goods save in accordance with the conditions of a permit granted or counter signed by the Regional or State Transport Authority or any. 

28.      Whereas section 66(3) (k) of MV Act 1988 reads as follows; To any transport vehicle which has been temporarily registered under section 43 while proceeding empty to any place for the purpose of registration of the vehicle, the provisions of sub section (1) of 66 of MV Act shall not apply.  So from section 66(3) (k) of MV Act the necessity of permit shall not apply to any transport vehicle which has been temporarily registered under section 43 while proceeding empty to any place for the purpose of registration of the vehicle.

29.      Admittedly the vehicle in question was temporarily registered as on the date of accident and the vehicle was insured with the opposite parties and the insurance policy was in force from 13.02.2016 to 12.02.2017. The date of accident  was 20.02.2016 and admittedly on the date of accident the vehicle in question was a commercial vehicle purchased by the complainant which was temporarily registered by the RTO, Mysore west and the same was valid up to 12.03.2016 and on the date of accident admittedly the vehicle in question which was commercial vehicle  was being taken empty by the complainant from Mysore to Bangalore for registration and on that day it was not used for commercial purpose and the said vehicle in the course of movement under temporary registration to Bangalore met with an accident.  Under such circumstances  the section 66(3) (k) of MV Act itself exempted the necessity of permits to run the vehicle.  Therefore sub section (1) of section 66 of MA Act shall not apply to any transport vehicle which has been temporarily registered under section 43 while proceeding empty to any place for the purpose of registration of the vehicle.  Therefore it is  crystal clear as per section 66 (3) (k) of MV Act the permit is not necessary to any transport vehicle which has been temporarily registered.  Therefore the repudiation of the claim of the complainant by the opposite party is  justified and thereby there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.  The opposite party ought to have settled the claim of the complainant towards damages of the vehicle which was caused in the accident.  Therefore the stand taken by opposite party repudiating the claim of the complainant was not correct and the opposite party is liable to settle its own admitted assessment of loss to the tune of Rs.1,27,195/- with interest to the complainant in view of the insurance policy issued by opposite party was valid on the date of accident.  Therefore, we answer point No.1 partly in the affirmative.

30. Point No.2:- For the aforesaid reasons, we proceed to pass the following

:: ORDER ::

The complaint filed by complainant is allowed in part.

The opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay its own admitted assessment of loss of the vehicle of the complainant to the tune of Rs.1,27,195/- with interest at 6% from the date of accident i.e., from 20.02.2016 till payment.

And it is further ordered that the opposite parties to pay Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and shock to the complainant and cost of Rs.5,000/-.

     Furnish the copy of order to both the parties at free of cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed, typed by her, corrected by us and then pronounced in open Commission on this the 15^th September, 2020)