DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Kashmiri Lal s/o Sh.Babu Ram r/o Bazigar Basti, Village Nangla, Tehsil Dera Bassi, District Mohali, Punjab.

…..Complainant

                                      V E R S U S

Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., SCO No.178, First Floor, Sector 38-C, Chandigarh, through its Manager.

……Opposite Party

QUORUM:   P.L.AHUJA                                                  PRESIDENT

                   RAJINDER SINGH GILL                                MEMBER

                   DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA         MEMBER

For Complainant(s): Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate.

For OP(s):                    Sh.Devinder Kumar, Advocate.

PER P.L.AHUJA, PRESIDENT

1.                Sh.Kashmiri Lal, complainant has filed this consumer complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opposite Party (hereinafter called the OP), alleging that he purchased a three wheeler for earning his livelihood on 11.11.2011 vide sale certificate and invoice, copies of which are Annexure C-1 and C-2.  The complainant got his three wheeler insured from the OP vide cover note No.555500 dated 11.11.2011, copy of which is Annexure C-3. The said vehicle was got registered from Registering Authority, Mohali, who allotted registration No.PB-65-P6379 to the vehicle.  The complainant also applied for permit and he was permitted to ply the vehicle within the M.C. Limits of Dera Bassi.  The copy of permit is Annexure C-4.  It has been contended that the said vehicle met with an accident on 12.7.2012 and was damaged.  The complainant got the vehicle repaired and spent an amount of Rs.25,050/- and lodged the claim with the OP.  The copies of bills of repair are Annexures C-6 and C-7.  It has been contended that the complainant was informed that there was difference of address in the policy and the permit and the claim could not be entertained. The complainant approached the OP a number of times and ultimately he was informed that his claim had been repudiated vide letter, copy of which is Annexure C-10.  The complainant has alleged that at the time of accident, there were no passengers in the vehicle and the accident took place within the MC limits of Dera Bassi but the OP did not listen to his arguments.  The complainant has alleged unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of OP. The complainant has made a prayer for a direction to the OP to pay the amount of Rs.25,050/- along with interest @12%, apart from making payment of compensation for unfair trade practice and deficiency in service and cost of litigation.

2.                OP in its written statement has admitted that the vehicle of the complainant was insured with it for the period from 11.11.2011 to 10.11.2012 subject to terms and conditions duly supplied to the complainant.  It has been averred that after getting information regarding the accident, the OP allotted claim No.10000/31/13/C/022548 and appointed Mr.Inder Pal Singh, Surveyor and Loss Assessor, who inspected the vehicle on 13.7.2012 at M/s Dhiman Welding Works, Barwala Road, Derabassi, who assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.13259.60 as per terms and conditions of the policy.  The complainant also submitted duly signed claim form to the surveyor, wherein, he disclosed that the accident in question took place on 11.7.2012 at 8.30 PM at VIP Road, Zirakpur.  The surveyor submitted his final report and found that the permit issued for the vehicle was for M.C. Limits of Dera Bassi and the accident in question took place at Zirakpur and as such the vehicle in question was being plied against the rules of Motor Vehicles Act and by violating the terms and conditions of the policy. Accordingly, the OP vide letter dated 30.8.2012 repudiated the claim of the complainant.

3.                The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4.                We have perused the entire evidence and written arguments of both the parties.

5.                It is the admitted case of the parties that the complainant is the owner of three wheeler bearing registration No.PB-65-P6379, which was insured with OP for the period from 11.11.2011 to 10.11.2012.  An accident of the said vehicle took place on 11.7.2012 in which, it was damaged and had to be got repaired. However, the surveyor found that the permit issued for the vehicle was for M.C. Limits of Dera Bassi but at the time of accident, the insured vehicle was being plied at Zirakpur, which is outside the M.C. Limits of Dera Bassi, therefore, the claim of the complainant was repudiated considering it violation of Section 84 of Motor Vehicles Act constituting a breach of the policy conditions.  Thus, the only point for determination before us is whether the complainant was holding a valid permit at the time of accident, if so, whether he is entitled for any compensation on account of the damage caused to the vehicle on 11.7.2012. 

6.                A perusal of the cover note at Annexure C-3 itself shows that the auto rickshaw of the complainant was meant for carrying passengers.  The complainant also obtained a Contract Carriage Permit, copy of which is Annexure C-4, in accordance with which, he could carry maximum number of passengers 3+1 and the permit was valid for M.C.Limits Dera Bassi.  According to the Motor Insurance Claim Form – Annexure R-3 furnished by the complainant, the accident took place on 11.7.2012 at VIP Road, Zirakpur.  Though it has been contended by the learned Counsel for the complainant that VIP Road, Zirakpur is within the limits of Dera Bassi, yet he has not produced any documentary evidence to this effect.  It is a well known fact that there is a separate Municipal Council at Zirakpur. Hence, we do not find any infirmity in the Motor (Final) Survey Report – Annexure R-3/A of Mr.Inder Pal Singh, Surveyor and Loss Assessor that at the time of accident insured vehicle was plying at Zirakpur, which is out of the M.C. Limits of Dera Bassi.  In other words, the complainant was driving his auto rickshaw in Zirakpur at the time of accident and his Contract Carriage Permit – Annexure C-4 was not valid at that place.

7.                The learned Counsel for the complainant has urged that the vehicle could be plied outside permit area and the repudiation of the claim by the OP is unjustified under Section 84 of the Motor Vehicles Act. He has further argued that Sub Section (3) Clause (i) of Section 66 of Motor Vehicles Act clearly states that provisions of sub-section (1) shall not apply to any goods vehicle, the gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed 3000 Kilograms.  He has contended that the weight of the vehicle of the complainant is only 725 Kg, therefore, there was no necessity of permit. He has argued that the vehicle was not carrying any passengers and was being used by the complainant for his personal use.  He has drawn our attention to ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. Vs. The Gill Transport Service (Registered), Moga, Appeal No.28 of 2011 decided by the Hon’ble State Commission, UT, Chandigarh on 25.5.2011 and has argued that if whole of the claim is not allowed then compensation on non standard basis be granted to the complainant.

8.                On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the OP has drawn our attention to United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Trilok Kaushik, Revision Petition No.2976 of 2006 decided by the Hon’ble National Commission on 9.11.2010,  Pal Singh Vs. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Revision Petition No.1911 of 2011 decided by the Hon’ble National Commission on 3.7.2012 and Jamil Khan and another Vs. M/s Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. and others, FAO No.5378 of 2010 decided by the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh on 21.5.2012 and has vehemently argued that non holding of a route permit is a breach of fundamental conditions as well as breach of law on the part of complainant and the complainant is not entitled to any compensation claimed by him.

9.                 We have carefully considered the rival contentions.  Since the three wheeler of the complainant is meant for carrying passengers and not a goods carrying vehicle, therefore, reference made by the learned Counsel for the complainant to Sub Section (3) Clause (i) of Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act has no relevance. Since the complainant has been driving the transport vehicle and is having a contract carriage permit for driving the three wheeler within the M.C. Limits of Dera Bassi, it does not lie in his mouth to say that he was not required to have any permit and the insurance company is liable to make payment of the compensation.  Even if the complainant was not carrying any passenger at the time of the alleged accident, yet it cannot be stated that he was not required to have any valid route permit at the time of the said accident. As far as the judgment dated 25.5.2011 ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. Vs. The Gill Transport Service (Registered), Moga, Appeal No.28 of 2011 decided by the Hon’ble State Commission, UT, Chandigarh (supra) cited by the learned Counsel for the complainant is concerned, in that case the compensation on non standard basis was granted after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of that case. In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Trilok Kaushik & Pal Singh Vs. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) decided by the Hon’ble National Commission a reference was made to Section 42 of the Motor Vehicles Act and it was held that it is clear that no transport vehicle can be used at any public place without a valid permit.  In other words, a transport vehicle without a valid permit cannot be plied on the road and for violation of the said provision there is penal liability under Section 123 of Motor Vehicles Act. Furthermore, in Jamil Khan and another Vs. M/s Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. and others (supra), the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana relied upon the following observations of Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Chella Bharathamma, (2004) 8 SCC 517:-

“The High Court was of the view that since there was no permit, the question of violation of any condition thereof does not arise. The view is clearly fallacious. A person without permit to ply a vehicle cannot be placed at a better pedestal vis-vis one who has a permit, but has violated any condition thereof.  Plying of a vehicle without a permit is an infraction.  Therefore, in terms of Section 149(2) defence is available to the insurer on that aspect.  The acceptability of the stand is a matter of adjudication.  The question of policy being operative had no relevance for the issue regarding liability of insurer.  The High Court was, therefore, not justified in holding the insurer liable.”  

In the above noted case, the Hon’ble High Court felt that no fault could be found in the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal in exonerating the Insurance Company and holding the appellants – driver and owner to indemnify the award.  Taking into consideration the law laid down in the above cited rulings, in the instant case the Contract Carriage Permit – Annexure C-4 in favour of the complainant was not a valid route permit for driving the three wheeler at VIP Road, Zirakpur. Therefore, we are of the view that if the claim of the complainant was repudiated by the OP, no fault can be found in such an action of OP. In other words, there is no evidence of any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP.

10.               For the reasons recorded above, we do not find any merit in the complaint and the same is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

11.              The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.