Bihar

StateCommission

A/317/2015

National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors - Complainant(s)

Versus

Smt. Poonam Pandey - Opp.Party(s)

Rajesh Chandra Narayan

12 Apr 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

BIHAR, PATNA

(Appeal No.317 of 2015)

 

 Branch Manager,

 National Insurance Company Ltd.

 District- Buxar and another.                                                            Appellants.        

VERSUS

Smt. Poonam Pandey,

W/o- Sri T.N. Chaubey,

R/o-  Prabha Market, Syndicate,

Town and District- Buxar.                                                                Respondent.

 

BEFORE,

                                Hon’ble Sri Upendra Jha, ADM (Rtd), Member.

                                Hon’ble Srimati Renu Sinha , Member(F).

 

ORDER

Date of order:     11 -05-2017

Upendra Jha,Member       

                   This appeal is directed against the order dated 07-08-2015 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Buxar in Complaint Case No. 73 of 2014 by which the appellants is directed to pay the respondent a sum of Rs.5, 47,413/-(Rupees five lacs, forty seven thousand and four hundred thirteen only) with Rs. 50,000/- as compensation within 45 days failing which 8% interest will be payable.

2.                Briefly stated, the case of the respondent-complainant is that she is the owner of a Tata City Ride Bus which was insured on 24-08-2012 by the appellant as Commercial vehicle. On 29-10-2012 during policy period, this bus along with other four buses when it was parked in a private school premises was burnt completely due to mechanical defects F.I.R. was lodged on 30-10-2012 in the local Police Station. Claim was filed by the owner of the buses. surveyor was deputed to assess the loss who reported a loss of Rs. 5, 47,413/-. But the appellant- Insurance Company repudiated the claim for non production of road permit by the respondent. The respondent-complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, Buxar against  repudiation of claim. The Opposite-party-appellant contested the case. The District Forum passed the impugned order. Being dissatisfied the appellant has filed this appeal to allow the appeal setting aside the order under appeal.

 

3.                           Respective written notes of arguments have been filed by the parties. Heard and perused the District Forum order.

4.                           The District Forum holding deficiency in service on the part of the appellant-O.P. for not paying the insurance amount assessed by the surveyor has allowed the claim.

5.                           The counsel for the appellant submits that there is no deficiency in service as the complainant was running the bus without valid road permit and fitness and there is no provision for plying the school bus without valid permit and without production of valid permit. The claim of the complainant has rightly been repudiated. Several Judgments of Hon’ble National Commission have been cited by the Insurance Company which held that no transport vehicle can be used on any public place without valid permit. But the District Forum has not considered this aspect of the matter. Hence, the order under appeal is not sustainable. It is fit to be set aside and the appeal be allowed.

6.                           The counsel for the respondent submits that the bus was not plying in any public place at the time of fire. It was parked in a private school premises when the bus was burnt in standing position. Thus, there was no any requirement of valid road permit and there is no violation of section 66 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Jitendra Kumar vs. oriental Insurance Company Limited reported in (2003) 6 SCC 420 has held that self fire due to mechanical defect in  the vehicle, there is no connection with the valid  Driving License of  a driver. Hence, allowed the claim. In this case also, there is no role in any manner of a road permit in self fire due to mechanical defects in the private school premises. The Chola Mandalam- Insurance Company never asked for any road permit of other two buses which burnt semuteniously in School Campus on the same day and the claim was settled. Hence, the District Forum order allowing the claim is proper and justified. It needs no interference. It is fit to be affirmed. The appeal be dismissed.

 

7.                           We have considered the submissions of both sides. On perusal of the order passed by the District Forum, it appears that the District Forum has analyzed the matter in correct perspective. It is admitted by parties, that the vehicle of the respondent was insured for Rs. 5,48,413/- by the appellant-Insurance Company and during the insurance period on 29-10-2012,the insured vehicle was completely burnt in a private School  Campus with other buses due to  mechanical  defects. The Insurance Company on getting information deputed a surveyor Mr. Ram Swaroop Dhooper, who after inspection, submitted a report for Rs. 5,47,413/- for payment which is on the record. But the Insurance Company repudiated the claim on the ground of non- production of valid road permit of the said bus. The Insurance Policy shows that when the vehicle is in running condition on places, it must have a valid road permit. But, this bus was burnt in standing condition in a private School premises with other two buses. So, there was no importance of road permit in this case. Claim of other two buses burnt at the same condition, has been settled. The  Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of  Jitendra Kumar vs. Oriental Insurance Company and another reported in (2003) 6SC 420 has held that in  such situation, the Insurance Company cannot repudiate the  claim due to non- production of road permit. The District Forum order is proper and justified. We do not find any reason to take a different view in it. However, interest and litigation cost has not been given on the insurance amount. A compensation of Rs.50, 000/- has been given in lieu of interest and litigation cost. It does not seem proper. We direct the appellant to pay an interest @ 7% p.a. on Rs.5, 47,413/- from the date of filing complaint i.e. from 10-10-2014 till final payment. Compensation amount is reduced to Rs.20, 000/- from Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- is directed to be paid as litigation cost. The entire amount be paid to the  respondent within two months from the  date of receipt of this order  failing  which 10% p.a. interest will be payable.

8.                           The District Forum order is modified as above and the appeal stands dismissed.

 

 

 

        Renu Sinha                                                          Upendra Jha                                                                      

         Member (F)                                                         Member (M)

 

 

 

 

 

                                                                                               

           Anita