FINAL ORDER/JUDGEMENT

SHRI  ASHOKE KUMAR GANGULY, MEMBER.

            This is a complaint case u/s 12 of the CP Act, 1986. The brief facts of the case is that the complainant being an unemployed youth for earning his livelihood purchased a 12 wheeler Tata Truck in his name by taking loan from the OP3 vide loan account No. 83842014 in the year 2018. The complainant took out an Insurance coverage of Rs.30,00,000/- from the OP1 vide policy No. 2315202470596800000 for the period from 26.10.2018 to 25.10.2019. The complainant applied for pemit to the OP2 vide letter dated 20.11.2018. The said truck was inspected on 12.11.2018 and certificate of fitness was issued on 06.12.2018. The car met with an accident on 19.04.2019 at Dankuni. The driver died and the helper was seriously injured. The complainant lodged a police complaint with Dankuni P.S. vide Case No. 77/2019 under section 279/337/304A/427 of IPC. The OP1 on being informed by the complainant inspected the car by their Surveyor on 20.04.2019 and asked for some documents to be submitted within 15 days including repairing bill. The complainant submitted all documents accordingly but the OP1 did not respond. The complainant sent letter dated 03.07.2019 to the OP1. The OP1 vide reply dated 04.07.2019 informed that “the vehicle  had not valid permit at the time of accident thus the claim is being closed as NO CLAIM.” The permit papers could not be handed over to the OP1 due to delay on the part of the RTO being the OP2. The subject truck was inspected and declared fit for the Road on 06.12.2018. So question of delay in permit does not arise. The repairing cost was Rs.13,70,000/- which is legitimate to be reimbursed. But the OP1 refused to reimburse for which the complainant finding no other way has approached the commission for justice. The complainant has no claim against the OP3.

    The OP1 has contested the case by filing their W/V contending inter alia that the case is not maintainable either in facts or in law and liable to be dismissed in limini. The complainant was issued the subject policy with IDV of Rs.30,00,000/- with specific terms and conditions stipulated in the policy. The accident took place on 19.04.2019. On receipt of intimation, the OP1 appointed one IRDA approved Surveyor . On scrutiny of papers it is revealed that the truck was plying on the Road without a valid and effective PERMIT. The permit was actually issued in favour of the vehicle on 23.04.2019 with effect from 22.04.2019. Mere application for the granting of a Permit does not allow the registered owner to use the vehicle for the purpose of carrying goods on public road. Nowhere in the Motor Vehicle Act, the registered owner of a transport vehicle has been given liberty to use the vehicle for carrying goods immediately after applying for the permit to any Transport Authority. Hence Insurance Company is not legally liable to indemnify the insured. The surveyor however assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.4,72,500/- subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. Since the complainant has failed to fulfill the terms and conditions  as stipulated in the policy the Insurance Company has rightly repudiated the claim. 

   .

                                          Points for Determination

On the pleading of parties the following points have necessarily come up for determination

1.Whether the OP 1 & 2  have got deficiency in service.

2.Whether the OP 1 & 2 are indulging unfair trade practice.

     3.Whether the Complainant is entitled for the relief/reliefs as prayed for.

Decision with Reasons

Points Nos. 1 to 4 :-

All the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity in discussion.

We have travelled over the documents placed on record.

Facts remain that the complainant Mr. Sabir Ali Sekh purchased the vehicle in the year 2018 after being financed by the OP3 Bank. The complainant has no grievance against the OP3 Bank. The grievance is against the OP1 being the Insurance Company who has rejected the claim as per the  terms and conditions of the policy  and also against the OP2 for delayed delivery of Permit.

Now let us focus on the chronology of the happenings of the said case. The car was purchased on 29.10. 2018. The Insurance Policy was effective for the period from 26.10.2018 to 25.10.2019. Road Permit Application Fee of Rs.540/- was accepted on 20.11.2018 for the said vehicle by the State Transport Department, Govt. of West Bengal. Certificate of Fitness was issued on 06.12.2018 by the State Transport Department, Govt. of West Bengal.

Accident took place on 19.04.2019.

Permit fee of Rs.5,000/- along with security deposit of Rs.1,000/- was deposited by the owner of the vehicle here being the complainant on 22.04.2019. Road permit was issued on 23.04.2019 for a period of 5 years effective from 22.04.2019 to 21.04.2024 in terms of the MV Act,1988.

From the above data it is evident that there was no Road Permit on the day of accident. From the submission of the OP2 it is observed that Permit application was approved on 01.02.2019 after verification of relevant documents. Immediately after getting approval of the application the registered owner could have paid the permit fee (the main and final part of the process for issuance of permit) on the same day i.e. 01.02.2019 for issuance of all Bengal permit then the validity of the permit could have been effective from 01.02.2019.

But elapsing a long period the registered owner deposited permit fee amounting to Rs.5,000/- along with security deposit of Rs.1,000/- on 22.04.2019 after the date accident which occurred on 19.04.2019. Road Permit was accordingly issued on 23.04.2019 effective from 22.04.2019 to 21.04.2024 for a period of 5 years. So we don’t find any fault on the part of the OP2 in the matter of issuance of Road Permit.

Moreover, in terms of section 66 of MV Act,1988, “ No owner of a Motor vehicle shall use or permit the use of the vehicle as a transport vehicle in any public place, whether or not such vehicle is actually carrying any passengers or goods save in accordance with the conditions of a permit granted or countersigned by a Regional or State Transport Authority or any prescribed authority.

Since the terms of section 66 of the MV Act,1988 is binding on the Vehicle owners and the vehicle owner has violated the said terms, the action of the OP1 in the matter of repudiation of the claim is justified.

Ld. Advocate of the OP1 has cited a relevant case law of the Hon’ble NCDRC in the matter of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Binod Kumar Singh, vide First Appeal No. 1778 of 2017 where the Hon’ble Court has observed that use of a vehicle in a public place without a Permit is a fundamental statutory infraction. Clearly, absence of permit is a fundamental breach of terms and conditions of the policy.

In view of the above observations we are of the opinion that the complainant has failed to establish his case against the OPs.

Thus all the points under determination are answered accordingly.

In the result, the consumer complaint fails.

Hence,

                     Ordered 

That  the Complaint case be and the same is dismissed on contest against  the OPs without any costs.