(As per A.A, Jain, Honorable Member) The Complainant filed this complaint against Opposite Party for seeking various relief as per prayer clause:- 1. Complainant’s case in short is that he is owner of Truck No. MP-23/D-8815. Complainant has purchased this truck to earn his livelihood. This vehicle was insured with O.P. vide Policy No. 16030231090100201132 from 1.1.2010 to 31.12.2010 . This truck met with accident near village Salaitola, District-Bhandara within jurisdiction of Police Station Andhalgaon, District Bhandara. That, the complainant immediately informed to Police Authority who registered F.I.R. No. 22/10 and drew spot panchnama. Complainant also informed about accident to Opposite Party. Then Surveyor of Opposite Party also visited the spot and prepared spot survey report. 2. The complainant intend to transfer his vehicle from M.P. to Maharashtra. But R.T.O. Gondia has not received the N.O.C. from M.P. this vehicle was not transferred to Maharashtra State. So R.T.O. Gondia used to issue temporary permit after receiving necessary charges from complainant and allow him to ply his vehicle in Maharashtra. The permit was valid from 31.12.2009 to 31/1/2010. 3. As per initial survey complainant had submitted estimated damage claim of Rs. 1,48,635/- to O.P. That subsequently the complainant has rendered total repairing expenses of worth Rs. 83,150/- and also submitted original bills to O.P. along with all other documents i.e. Registration Certificate, Transport Permit, Fitness Certificate etc. 4. That, the O.P. vide it’s leter dated 1.6.2010 intimated the complainant that there was no valid permit on the date of accident i.e.3.1.2011. Complainant further submit that O.P. intentionally failed to consider the fact that old permit was renewed by R.T.O. Gondia on dated 5.1.2011 as per law and such renewal shall have effect from the date of expiry i.e. 31.12.2009. Complainant further submit that O.P. without considering the above fact has illegally repudiated the claim of complainant vide it’s letter dt. 20.1.2011. 5. Complainant prayed to declared that O.P. had committed deficiency in service by illegally repudiated the legal claim of complainant. Complainant prayed to direct O.P. to pay actual repairing charges Rs.83150/- with 9% interest from 3.1.2010 till the actual date of payment to complainant. Complainant also prayed to direct O.P. to pay compensation of Rs, 10,000/- towards mental harassment and Rs.5000/- towards litigation charges (Exh.1) 6. In response to notice u/s 13 of Consumer Protection Act. O.P. appeared and filed his reply (Exh.13). O.P. denied all allegations of complainant. 7. O.P. submitted that there was no valid permit granted by R.T.O. on the date of accident. O.P. also denied that complainant had to incur Rs.83150/- for repairing of the vehicle. O.P. further submitted that after receipt of intimation of accident he has appointed spot surveyor and then final surveyor Shri N.A. Chandak in order to assess the loss. Shri Chandak surveyor submitted his report on 15.3.2010 and thereby assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.43635/-. O.P. submitted that as per the policy conditions imposed excess of Rs.10,000/- is required to be deducted from the above assessment. 8. On verifying all the records and hearing arguments of both the sides and gone through to submitted case laws only point arise for our consideration whether complainant is entitled for relief and our finding is in positive due to following reasons. REASONS 9. Complainant’s vehicle was registered with Transport Authority of Madhya Pradesh and he used to take the temporary permit of Maharashtra State. So he intend to get transferred his vehicle from Madhya Pradesh to Maharashtra i.e. under R.T.O. authority Gondia But due to non-issuance of N.O.C. by Transport Authority of Madhya Pradesh, Registration of vehicle was not transferred to R.T.O. Gondia. So R.T.O. Authority Gondia used to issue temporary permit to complainant. 10. O.P. has insured complainant’s vehicle MP-23/D-8815 and paid the insurance charges and there was no any condition that complainant could not ply his vehicle in Maharashtra State. If complainant take the permit from Transport Authority and pay R.T.O.’s Charges to move his vehicle at any other State then also O.P. has to pay the compensation on account of any accident or any third party loss or claim. 11. Complainant purchased this vehicle for earning his livelihood. The complainant duly insured the above vehicle with opposite party vide Policy No. 16030231090100201132 from dt. 1.1.2010 , 12.00.01 A.M. to 31.12.2010, 11.59.50 P.M. By taking into consideration the registration permit of said vehicle for Maharashtra has been renewed upto 31.01.2010 . Accident of vehicle took place on 3.1.2010. Hence this policy of insurance covers the accidental loss of this vehicle. Hence O.P. has to pay the accidental loss as per the terms and conditions of policy. 12. Complainant filed some case laws to support his claim. (A) II (2004) CPJ 205 Rajasthan State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Jaipur- Mahesh Tailor Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Appeal No. 2115 of 1995- Decided on 8.12.2003. (1) Consumer Protection Act,1986-Section 15-Insurance-Non-selttlement of claim-Driver not holding valid permit for plying vehicle in Rajasthan, Complaint dismissed – Hence appeal- Dismissal had no nexus with accident and damages caused to vehicle – order set aside - matter remanded back to determine quantum of compensation. (B) IV 2009 CPJ 46 SC – Supreme Court of India New India Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Pradeepkumar – Civil Appeal No. 3253 of 2002 – Decided on 09.04.2009. Insurance Act, 1938 - Section 64 M(2) – Insurance – Assessment of loss – Pre-requisite for settlement of claim – Surveyor’s report not last and final word. It may be basis for settlement of claim but neither binding upon insurer nor insured – Complainant’s claim accepted by consumer forum as duly supported by original vouchers, bills and receipts. No interference required in appeal. (C) I (2009) CPJ – 25 Tripura State Consumer Dispute Rredressal Commission, Agartala. Arunkumar Rudra Paul Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd., Appeal No. F.A, 20 of 2008 – Decided on 10.9.2008 Complainant held entitled to actual repairing charges on basis of money receipts issued by workshop. (D) Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 Section 81 – Duration and renewal of permit. (5) Where a permit been renewal under the Section after the expiry of the period thereof, such renewal shall have effect from the date of such expiry irrespective of whether or not a temporary permit has been granted under clause (d) of section 87 and whether a temporary permit has been granted, the fee paid in respect of such temporary permit shall be refunded. Thus in light of above case law complainant is entitled for claim on account of accident of his vehicle. 13. Spot Surveyor and then final Surveyor Shri N.A. Chandak in order to assess the loss. Shri Chandak submitted this report on 15.3.2010 thereby assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 43,635/- . As per the policy conditions imposed excess of Rs.10’000/- is required to be deducted from the above assessment. So complainant is entitled for claim Rs.33,635/- for accidental loss of his vehicle as vehicle is very old (1995 Model). 14. Complainant is also entitled for compensation of Rs.5000/- towards mental harassment and Rs.5000/- also towards litigation charges. Hence O.P. has to pay total Rs.43,635/- towards claim of his accidental vehicle. Hence we proceed to pass following order :- ORDER 1. Complaint is party allowed. 2. O.P. is directed to pay Rs.43,635/- as claim to complainant of his accidental vehicle, physical and mental harassment charges and cost of litigation. Within one month unless O.P. has to pay interest @ 10% per annum. (Ajit Kumar Jain) (Smt. P.B. Potdukhe) Member President, District Consumer Dispute Rredressal Judicial Forum, Gondia.
| | [HONORABLE Shri. Ajitkumar Jain] Member[HONORABLE Smt. Potdukhe] PRESIDENT | | 
