As per Shri Atul D. Alsi,   Hon’ble President.

1. The complainant filed present complaint u/s.35 of Consumer Protection Act., 2019 against the arbitrary repudiation of insurance claim for the reason that on the date of accident the vehicle was not having permit to play the vehicle and therefore claiming insurance claim and compensation with cost.
2. The complainant was an owner of one Bus bearing No.MH-49, J-1074, which was insured with O.P. under policy bearing No.16020031180100022319 for the period between 27.3.2019 to 26.3.2020 and the fitness certificate was valid from the date 19.3.2019 to 27.3.2021. The complainant submitted that he was running his vehicle for earning his livelihood. On dated 10.5.2019 the complainants bus was book for marriage purpose and complainant had obtained permit on 10.5.2019 to 11.5.2019  but due to changes in the schedule at last the movement, the complainant was required to send bus one day prior and therefore complainant could not get additional permit for the date 9.5.2019.  When the bus coming from Pouni to Lakhandur it met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of driver of motor cycle.  The one motorcyclist Mr. Ramesh Pillere riding his vehicle in wrong direction under influence of liquor and come in front of bus resulted the death of motorcyclist.  Due to impact of accident the mob gathered with uncontrolled sentiments and set the bus on fire and there was compete loss of bus.  The offence came to be registered u/s.304 B of IPC bearing crime No. 104/2019 against the driver of bus. The complainant lodge the claim with opponent for the insurance of vehicle on account of total loss but the  O.P. has repudiated the insurance claim for the reason of on the date of incident the bus had not valid permit as per letter issued by O.P. on dated 21.11.2019 to that effect.   The act of incident to set a vehicle on fire is unforeseen act and no nexus with driver posing the requisite permit, therefore rejection of claim does amount to deficiency of service.  Therefore complainant is claiming insurance claim of Rs. 21,00,000/-  and  Rs.1,20,000/- for loss of vehicle along with and mental agony and  compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- and for the cost of proceeding of Rs.50,000/-.
3. O.P. submitted reply and denied all allegations and admitted the complainant vehicle insurance compressive policy valid for the period 27.3.2019 26.3.2020. The complaint had submitted the insurance claim under the policy for the accident occurred on dated 9.5.2019.  The permit was from dated 10.5.2019 to 11.5.2019, therefore the complainant vehicle was driven without permit on 9.5.2019 which is violation of Motor Vehicle Act and contravention of insurance policy, therefore insurance claim was repudiated by O.P. on dated 21.11.2019 is a proper.  The use of vehicle on 9.5.2019 is breach of section 66 of 1988 is also a breach of terms and condition of insurance policy.  The complainant cannot play the vehicle without permit on road; therefore rejection of insurance claim does not amount to deficiency of service.
4. Advocate Mr. Agarwal,Counsel for complainant argued that the complaint has availed finance from Axis bank to purchase the vehicle. The O.P. has on account of complete destruction of vehicle by mob rejected the insurance claim on hyper technical ground is not justifiable. The accident and permit has no nexus, therefore rejection of claim does amount to deficiency of service.
5. Advocate Mrs. Rohila, counsel for the O.P.’s argued that the driver of bus having licence and bus has valid fitness certificate but on the date of incident the vehicle could not get the permit to play the vehicle, therefore it is a breach of section 66 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and therefore rejection of insurance claim does not amount to deficiency of service.

REASONING

6. The complainant use bus bearing No. MH-49-J-1074 which was insured with O.P. for the period of 27.3.2019 to 26.3.2020 under policy bearing no. 16020031180100022319 fort the sum assured of Rs.16,00,000/- and having fitness certificate for the period of  March 2019 to 27.3.2021. The complaint vehicle was having permit from dated 10.5.2019 to 11.5.2019. The complainant vehicle was hired for transportation of a marriage party on dated 10.5.2019 to 11.5.2019 but due to sudden changes in programme the vehicle was required one day prior i.e. on dated 9.5.2019 and the very same day it met with an accident and one motor cyclist died on the spot, the gathered mob set the bus on fire. The basic dispute is in respect of repudiation of claim for not having valid permit on the date of accident.
7. The complainant vehicle came to be burned on the spot by the mob due to anger arose from the death of motorcyclist due to the sudden accident.
8. The complainant filed insurance claim for the loss caused due to burning of   vehicle from mob, the vehicle was burned is unforeseen act, the vehicle is not burned due to motor vehicle accident.  The accident has no nexus with absence of permit.  The cause of accident can’t be absence of permit.  The absence of permit may rise monetary penalty under Motor Vehicle Act.1988.  Therefore not having of permit at the time of running of vehicle does not cancel the whole  insurance policy,  therefore the complainant is entitled to get of compensation on non standard basis of Insurance claim  against 70 % of sum assured of Rs.16,00,000/- that is Rs.11,20,000/- without awarding any cost and interest as per following order.

ORDER

1. Complaint is partly allowed.
2. O.P. is directed to pay the compensation of  Rs.70 %  of  sum assured of Rs.16,00,000/- that is Rs.11,20,000/-, to the complainant  on non standard basis of insurance claim under the  policy bearing No. 16020031180100022319, without  awarding   any interest, and cost.
3. Copy of  the order be furnished to the parties free of cost.