Date: 06-10-2015
Sri Kamal De, President
FINAL ORDER
The instant complaint case arises over non-grant of permission for repair of vehicle bearing registration no. WB-29A/8995 (Tata Indigo) by the OP No. 1 to the body shop of the OP No. 3.
Case of the Complainant, in short, is that she is a permanent resident of Purba Medinipur district, OP No. 1 is the Officer of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and the OP No. 2 is his agent. It is stated by the Complainant that she is the registered owner of vehicle no. WB-29A/8995 (Tata Indigo), which she purchased for the purpose of maintenance of her livelihood after taking loan on 15-12-2014. The State Transport Authority gave offer letter for permit on 28-11-2014. The said vehicle was registered on 22-12-2014. She took an insurance policy in respect of the said vehicle being Policy No. 0317003114P107554935 for the period from 04-12-2014 to midnight 03-12-2015 for an ID value of Rs. 5,85,000/-. She also deposited a sum of Rs. 10,000/- for permit on 26-12-2014 and submitted relevant documents to the authority concerned on 29-12-2014, but till date she has not received any permit. The said vehicle met with a road accident on 06-04-2015 at B. T. Road, Kolkata at 9.45 p.m. for which Cossipore P.S. started M.C.R. Case No. 48/2015 dated 06-04-2015. Intimation in respect of said accident was communicated to the OPs over phone on 07-04-2015. It is stated by the Complainant that at the time of accident, there was no passenger. The said damaged vehicle was taken to the body shop of OP No. 3, who estimated the cost of repairing as Rs. 2,03,469/-. The Surveyor completed survey on 10-04-2015, but till date, the OP No. 1 has not given its nod to the OP No. 3 to go ahead with necessary repairing job. It is stated by the Complainant that the OP No. 3 is charging garage rent @ Rs. 300/- per day. Terming such inaction on the part of the OP No. 1 as an instance of gross deficiency in service, the instant case has been filed by the Complainant seeking various relief as stated in detail in the petition of complaint.
OP No. 1 contested the case by filing W.V. contending inter alia that the instant petition is not maintainable in its present form and prayer and the petitioner has no ground at all to initiate the present proceedings. It denied any deficiency in service on its part, as alleged by the Complainant. It is stated by the OP No. 1 that neither it asked the Complainant to deliver the vehicle to the OP No. 3, nor put any embargo upon the Complainant to finish necessary repairing work. There was no question of giving any approval to the Complainant or the OP No. 3 to start repairing job by this OP. It is alleged by the OP No. 3 that the Complainant used the vehicle in gross violation of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The vehicle was used without valid permit which is a statutory violation of Sec. 66(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and a punishable offence u/s 192A of the said Act. As the Complainant violated statutory condition of the policy, she is not entitled to any insurable benefit. Accordingly, this OP prayed for dismissal of the instant case.
Other OPs have not appeared to contest this case despite proper service of notice upon them. Accordingly, this case was heard ex parte against them.
The solitary point for consideration in this case is whether the Complainant is entitled to get any order in terms of the prayer of the petition of complaint.
Decision with reasons
It appears that the Complainant is the registered owner of vehicle no. WB-29A/8995 (Tata Indigo). It also appears that the said vehicle was registered on 22-12-2014.
It is the case of the Complainant that the said vehicle met with an accident on 06-04-2015 at B.T. Road, Kolkata, resulting which, the concerned vehicle got badly damaged. The vehicle was sent to the body shop of OP No. 3 for doing necessary repairing work. However, in absence of necessary approval/consent from the side of the OP No.1, the job at hand could not be carried out by the OP No. 3. As a result, the Complainant is suffering huge financial loss.
On the other hand, OP No. 1 has alleged that the vehicle was plied without necessary permit from the concerned authorities. It is argued by the Ld. Lawyer of the OP No. 1 that the policy covers use only under a permit within the meaning of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Stretching further his argument, the Ld. Lawyer contended that plying a vehicle on road with valid permit is a mandatory requirement of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 and lapses on this score is a punishable offence u/s 192A of the said Act. It is argued by the Ld. Lawyer that since the Complainant admittedly plied the vehicle despite not having requisite permit for this purpose, she is not entitled to any insurable benefit. Ld. Lawyer for the OP No. 1 further alleged that the Complainant has intentionally shied away from filing necessary cogent documentary proof to establish that the vehicle indeed got damaged due to alleged accident. Thus, while the veil of suspicion surrounding the alleged incident of accident is far from being removed by the Complainant beyond all reasonable doubt, it is futile on her part to expect any indemnification under the policy in question.
It appears, save and except photocopy of an intimation to the police authority which was registered as MCR No. 48/15 dated 06-04-2015, no other cogent document, viz., GDE, FIR, FRT is forthcoming before us to satisfy ourselves about the veracity of Complainant’s case as regards happening of accident on 06-04-2015.
Severity of damage allegedly sustained by the insured vehicle can be easily gauged if one pays a thoughtful consideration to the financial implication of repairing the vehicle or stare a glance through the quotation of OP No. 3 containing long list of items that, to the estimation of the OP No. 3 require replacement in order to turn the vehicle back in roadworthy condition. From the photocopy of estimate placed on record, it appears that repairing/replacement cost of spare parts would entail an expenditure of Rs. 1,69,641.00/-, whereas total outgo on account of labour would be Rs. 33,628.54. It is most unlikely that the concerned police station would not cause due enquiry into a matter of this magnitude. In such circumstances, non-submission of a single piece of document being prepared by the concerned police station certainly raises eyebrows.
Whether it was a mere coincidence or otherwise, an intriguing factor of this case is that Amit Kumar Pande, a resident of 37/1A/B/1, Cossipore Road, P.S. Cossipore, Kolkata – 2, who was allegedly on the wheel of ill-fated vehicle bearing registration no. WB-29A/8995 (Tata Indigo) on 06-04-2015, drove another vehicle being no. WB-29A/9111 (Tata Indigo) on 02-03-2015, which too allegedly met the same fate and a complaint case being No. 52/2015 in this regard has been filed before us. It appears, there are lot of similarities in between the two cases, viz., accident in respect of both the vehicles took place on B.T. Road, Kolkata; at the time of alleged accident, no one was present inside the vehicle; both the vehicles have been sent to the servicing centre of OP No. 3; in both the cases the concerned vehicles were plied without due permit; owners of both the vehicles are inhabitants of Purba Medinipur district; MCR case has been registered by Cossipore P.S. in respect of both the vehicles; both the vehicles are insured with the same Insurance Company; no affidavit is filed from the side of the driver in either of these two cases. Taking into consideration the identical nature of both the cases, quite predictably, Ld. Lawyer for the OP Insurer has sought to paint both the claims as bogus/fictitious. On a thoughtful consideration of the facts and circumstances of this case in its entirety, including the elements of improbability surrounding the very occurrence of road accident, we find no reason whatsoever to take a differing view than the one being articulated by the Ld. Lawyer for the OP No. 1.
Be that as it may, even if we accept the claim of the Complainant at face value – without the Complainant being suspected of having any ulterior motive in lodging her claim with the OP Insurer – then also, her claim cannot pass muster the scrutiny of OP Insurer for violation of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Admittedly, on the fateful day, i.e., on 06-04-2015, the vehicle was used without due permit. The position of law is quite clear in this regard. For better understanding, relevant portion of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is appended below.
“66 Necessity of permits –
- 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 passenger or goods……”
Reading between the lines of above referred provisions clearly put the Complainant on the wrong side of law. Insofar as adherence to the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is a condition precedent in order to get a claim settled, we are afraid, we see no merit in the present case. Above all, the Complainant could not show us existence of any such provision under the insurance policy in question to the effect that for the purpose of repairing a damaged vehicle, approval from the side of the OP Insurer is mandatory. Consequent thereof, and to avoid draining of Govt. money, we see no compelling reason whatsoever to issue necessary direction upon the OP No. 1 in the manner and form, as prayed for by the Complainant in her petition of complaint.
To sum up, the instant complaint case fails being vexatious, frivolous and lame of any merit.
Hence,
ORDERED
that the C. C. No. 51/2015 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OP No. 1 and ex parte against OP Nos. 2 & 3. The Complainant shall pay cost of Rs.10,000/-, out of which 50% to be deposited with Consumer Legal Aid Account of Dist. Forum of Purba Medinipur and 50% to be paid to the OP no.1 within 40 days from the date of passing this order, failing which the complainant shall pay interest @ 9% p.a. after lapse of 40 days on the said amount in equal proportion.
