BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
CACHAR :: SILCHAR
Con. Case No. 24 of 2016
Mohim Uddin Barbhuiya,
Vill – Nutan Ramnagar Pt- V
P/O – Dakhin Mohanpur, P.S Sonai, Dist – Cachar(Assam) Complainant.
-V/S-
1. The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd.
Silchar Branch, Capital Travels Building, Club Road,
Silchar-1 O.P No.1.
2. General Manager, Zonal Office, National Insurance Co. Ltd.
Head Office 3, middle for street Kolkata Pro-forma O.P.
Present: - Sri Bishnu Debnath, President,
District Consumer Forum,
Cachar, Silchar.
Shri Kamal Kumar Sarda, Member,
District Consumer Forum,
Cachar, Silchar.
Appeared: - Mr. Baharul Islam Barbhuiya, Advocate for the complainant.
Mr. Debasish Som , Advocate for the O.Ps.
Date of Evidence 22-05-2017, 23-06-2017
Date of written argument 07-08-2017, 10-11-2017
Date of oral argument 05-03-2018, 14-06-2018
Date of judgment 09-07-2018
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
Sri Bishnu Debnath,
- The Complainant Mohim uddin Barbhuiya brought the case under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986 against the National Insurance Co. Ltd. Silchar and its General Manager for award of sum insured of the vehicle vide Regd.No. AS.11/BC-4079 (TATA Xenon Pick Up) and compensation because the O.P. repudiated his claim on 15/10/2016.
- To get the claim, he brought following following fact:-
The Complainant purchased insurance policy to insure the aforesaid vehicle with the O.P. vide insurance policy No. 25331131130150003309. The Period of Insurance was from 31/01/2014 to 30/01/2015. But on 26/02/2014 at night the vehicle has been stolen by unknown miscreant which was kept in front of his relative’s house at Singerbond Pt-V, Binnakandi, Cachar. Accordingly, he lodged ejahar and police registered a Lakhipur P.S Case. He also informed the Insurance Co. and DTO the fact of stealing of his vehicle. But the police submitted FR on 31/05/2014 vide Lakhipur P.S. F.R No.41/14 and the O.P. repudiated the claim on 15/10/2016.
- The O.P. submitted W/S. In the W/S stated inter alia that the Complainant is not entitled any claim because he violated the permit condition in view of Section.66 of the Motor Vehicle Act. To make it clear the O.P. stated that complainant in his statement admitted the fact that the vehicle was plying out of the route mention in the permit.
- During hearing, the Complainant submitted his deposition supporting affidavit and exhibited all relevant documents. The O.Ps also examined Sri Suraj Kumar Das. After closing evidence both sides’ counsels submitted written argument.
- During hearing the permit has been verified. The joint commission of Transport, Assam at Guwahati, submitted verification report that the registration number of the vehicle has been written in the permit as As-11/BC-4097 instead of AS-11/BC-4079 which was a clerical mistake. Anyhow, in this case the crux point is whether the Complainant violated the permit condition by plying the vehicle at Singerbond which is off the route.
- In the Ext.8 Temporary permit the route has been mention from Guwahati to Aizawl but it is admitted fact that the place where from the vehicle has been stolen is off the above route. That is why, the O.P. took a defense plea that as per the provision of Sec.66 (I) of the M.V.Act. 1988 the Complainant has violated permit condition and as such not entitled any compensation or any relief as prayed for because plying the vehicle off the route at Singerbond does not fall in any of the condition mention in Section.66(3) of the M.V. Avt.1988.
- I have gone through the vehicular documents including permit and Insurance policy vide Ext.8 and Ext.2 respectively. The Gross Vehicle Weight (GAW) is 2950 Kg. That is why, in the instant case the provision of Section 66(3) (i) of the M.V. Act.1988 is applicable. The said provision is exception to the restriction imposed U/S 66(i) of the M.V.Act. 1988.
- The said Section 66(3) (i) of the M.V. Act. 1988 says if the GAW is not exceeding 3,000 Kg. The restriction imposed U/S 66(I) of the M.V. Act.1988 is not applicable. Which means that if the Complainant of the instant case plied the vehicle off the route mentioned in the Ext.8 it will not be treated as violation of route permit because GAW is less than 3,000 Kg.
- As such, the Complainant is entitled the relief of an award of sum insured subject to depreciation if any as per terms and condition of the insurance policy. As the O.P unlawfully repudiated the claim of the Complainant, so, the O.P.s are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation for disservice of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand) only and cost of the proceeding of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand) only in addition of making payment of sum insured as stated above. The O.Ps are further directed to satisfy the award within 45 days from today. In default 10% interest to be charge on total amount as stated above including post deduction of depreciation of sum insured.
- With the above relief the Complaint case is disposed of on contest. Supply free certified copy of this Judgment to the parties of this litigation. Given under the hand and seal of this District Forum on this District Forum on this the 9th day of July, 2018.
