The titled complainant, aggrieved at 'repudiation' of his total-loss accidented-vehicle insurance-claim pertaining to his Bolero Pick-Up Vehicle with R.C. (Registration Certificate) No. PB-06-AK2226 (Ex.C2) has filed the present complaint against the titled OP insurers. The complainant had got his vehicle comprehensively insured for an IDV (Insured Depreciated Value) of Rs.5,99,715/- vide Policy # 1401003311703500002287 valid w.e.f. 17.10.2017 to 16.10.2018 (Ex.C3) by paying a premium of Rs.19,778/- to the OP insurers.

2.       However, the insured vehicle got badly damaged on 07.01.2018, in a road-side accident turning it to ‘total-loss’ (Ex.C4) with its Driver killed (Ex.C5) on the spot, while taking the live-stock chicken-load to Srinagar (Ex.C6) from Pathankot (Punjab) and the related insurance-claim was duly filed complete, in all respects.

3.       Further, the OP insurers had repudiated the total-loss claim on 26.09.2018 (Ex.C8) on the ground that the insured vehicle was not authorized to ply in J & K having rejected the Toll Tax Entry Receipt (Ex.C7) in the absence of the valid J & K Route Permit. The complainant having failed to move the OP insurers to pay the impugned–claim and upon their refusal has filed the present complaint accompanied by his affidavit Ex.C1 seeking issuance of directives to the OP insurers to pay him the IDV amount of Rs.6.0 Lac with interest @ 12% PA besides Rs.100,000/- as compensation and Rs.15,000/- as cost of litigation alongwith written arguments.

4.       The titled opposite party insurers (the OP insurers) appeared in compliance to the commission’s summons/notice through their counsel and filed the written reply stating therein preliminary as well as other objections (on merits) as:

5.       That the complaint is not maintainable as there’s violation of the terms and conditions of the policy in that the complainant permitted his vehicle to be plied in J & K state without having the state permit for J & K as the vehicle’s valid permit has been for the state of Punjab, only. On merits, the OP insurers have not disputed the contents of paragraphs 1, 2 & 3 being matter of records but the Toll Tax Ex.C7 paid at the state border has been no substitute for the state-permit and its absence absolves the insurers of their liability towards the insured. Further, repudiation has been admitted and again the Toll Tax Receipt has not been the State Route Permit for J & K. Further, the contents of paragraphs 6, 7, 8 and 9 are rejected being incorrect and not acceptable. The OP insurers do not acknowledge the contents of paragraph 10 hence not commented upon whereas paragraph 11 and 12 are not commented upon being legal requirements. Lastly the OP insurers have filed the sole affidavit of their Divisional Manger Ex.OP-1 and also written arguments and have sought dismissal of the present complaint addressing it as without merit.

6.       We have examined the available documents/evidence on the records so as to statutorily interpret the meaning and purpose of each document and also the scope of adverse inference on account of some documents ignored to be produced by the contesting litigants against the back-drop of the arguments as put forth by the learned counsels for their respective litigants. We find that the present dispute has arisen on account of the impugned ‘repudiation' of the vehicle-accident insurance-claim by the OP insurers on account of the absence of valid route permit for the state of J & K.

7.       We further find that the OP insurers have not put forth some cogent evidence in support of their pleading that the toll-tax entry receipt does not validate a vehicle to ply in the state of J & K. Had it been so the vehicle wouldn’t have been allowed to enter the state through the inter-state border? Moreover, the vehicle in question hasn’t been the one goods-carrier it has been the live-poultry stock-carrier. And, the insurance claim pertained to self own-damage and hasn’t been the third party damage. We find the OP repudiation as non-judicious and arbitrary and thus set it aside.

8.       In the light of the all above, we partly allow the present complaint and ORDER the herein opposite party insurers to pay the impugned claim, in full, to the vehicle’s IDV to the complainant with interest @ 6% PA w e from the date of the complaint besides to pay Rs.10,000/- in lump sum as compensation and as cost of litigation within 45 days of the receipt of the certified copy of these orders otherwise the aggregated awarded amount shall attract an additional interest @ 3% PA from the date of the orders till paid in full.        

9.        The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases, vacancies in the office and due to pandemic of Covid-19.

10.      Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.         

                                                          (Naveen Puri)

                                                                President.

ANNOUNCED:                                  (R.S.Sukhija)

OCT. 06, 2022.                                            Member.

YP.