Presents:-
1.Sri P.Samantara,President.
2.Smt.S.Rath, Member.
3.Sri G.K.Rath, Member.
Dated,Bolangir the 22nd day of June 2015.
C.C.No.40 of 2014.
Narayan Mishra, age-35 years, son of late Bijaya Kumar Mishra.
Resident of village-Laturpet P.S.Birmaharajpur, Dist-Sonepur.
At present residing at Clubpara Bolangir Town, P.O/P.S &
District- Bolangir.
.. .. Complainant.
-Versus-
1.The senior Divisional Manager,National Insurance Co.Ltd.
Divisional Office, Sambalpur At-Nayapara Sambalpur Town,
P.O/P.S & Dist- Sambalpur.
2.The Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited,
Bolangir Branch, At/P.O/P.S & Dist- Bolangir.
.. .. Opp.Parties.
Adv.for the complainant- Sri B.S.Satpathy.
Adv.for the Opp.Parties – Sri J.K.Sai.
Date of filing of the case – 16.06.2014
Date of order of the case – 22.06.2015
JUDGMENT.
Sri P.Samantara, President.
In the matter of an application u/s.12 of the C.P.Act.1986, filed by the complainant alleging deficiency in service against the Opp.parties.
2. One complainant named Narayana Mishra, aged 35 years of village Laturpet, Birmaharajpur, Dist-Sonepur, at present residing at Clubpada,Bolangir institutes the case averring parties are resident of places mentioned above, this forum has jurisdiction u/s.11(i) of the C.P.Act. Also averred, the complainant is the bonafide registered owner of the vehicle bearing Regd.No.OD15-2144 (Bolero XL,2WD AC) on the date 30.10.2012.
3. The complainant has insured the vehicle against Policy No.-163400/31/13/6300001579,covered from 16.10.2013 to 15.10.2014 The vehicle met accident on dt.02.01.2014 in proceeding from Rairakhole to Biramaharajpur, reported under SDE No.16/2014,intimating to the O.P on the same day.
4. It is also said, post intimation, the surveyor was deputed on the O.D. claim No-163400/31/13/6390000143. The vehicle was repaired at Minerva Automobiles Bolangir, in total payment of Rs 70,000/- in stages, whereas Minerva Automobiles issued a bill of Rs 91,311/- against a bill No. RBC 14A002740/dt.20.01.14. So it is complained, the O.P. did not pay the balance amount of Rs 21,301/- in settlement of the O.D. claim rather issued a pre-repudiation letter bearing No.32/dt.04.04.2014.
5. Further stating, the complainant has violated the policy terms and conditions, stating that at the relevant time of accident, the driver has no valid and effective driving license in the permit No.CC/PP/15/482/12-13. On dated 05.05.2014 the O.Ps again repudiated the O.D. claim vide his letter No.195/ Dt.05.05.14, reiterating the same fact as stated in letter dated 04.04.2014. So the cause of action in the present case recurs from 05.05.2014. Praying the O.P may be directed to repay the entire O.D. claim as lodged along with interest, compensation and cost as the forum deems fit and proper.
6. On being noticed, the O.Ps appeared in admitting the O.P.2 is carrying on business so to say the parties are resident of places as mentioned. The complainant is the owner of Bolero XL 2WD AC bearing registration No.OD15-2144 and submitting that prior to the transfer of ownership in the name of the complainant one Sarata Chandra Sahu was the registered owner of the said vehicle.
7. The O.P also admitted the vehicle is issued with passenger carrying commercial vehicle B package policy No.163400/31/13/6300001579 valid from dt.16.10.2013 to 15.10.2014 was issued by Div. office, Sambalpur retaining the stipulated terms and conditions therein. Further the O.P admitted the nature of accident, place, time and intimating to the concerned deptt. and subsequent process of settlement and thereby repudiation along with the causes leading to repudiation.
8. The O.P also said, in intimation, Mr.Bala Krushna Patra, was deputed. The assessed loss comes to Rs 39,639/- and contending as per claim submission and SD entry one Sitaram Karna was driver at the time of accident bearing D.L.No.-OR-15-20060000361 and permitNo.CC/PP/15/482/12-13 was issued against the vehicle No.OD15-2144 in the name of Sarat Chandra Sahu from the period 01.11.2012 to 31.10..2017 which has been transferred in the name of complainant w.e.f. 08.01.2014 and the permit reveals, it has been transferred after the accident, since the accident occurred on dt.02.01.2014,so it is crystal clear that the driver of the vehicle was not authorized to drive the said vehicle and the permit was not effective at the time of accident which amounts violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy, so it is rightly repudiated. Relied on Surveyor report, SDE Entry, Motor claim form, Policy”B” package, Investigation report, Permit No.CC/PP/15/482/12-13, Repudiation letter and latter written note of argument along with decisions of Apex Court and CDR Commission, Cuttack with relevant photo copies.
9. Heard the learned counsels on both sides. Gone through relevant documents at hand and perused the records and strenuous contentions with due submissions, in tenure hearing.
10. On perusal of the entire case, the sole contention emerged relating repudiation of the claim in substantive with relevant law in force. No contention persists on the facts as descripted rather with the law relating to disowning of the entire claim.
11. We prefer discuss, the entire gamut from the berth of law. On the first instance, the complainant belongs to village Laturpet, Birmaharajpur, Dist-Sonepur and presently residing at Clubpada, Bolangir, but no document has been adduced in substantive ,entire record relates district Sonepur. Again the application made u/s.11© of the C.P. Act, relinquish the statutory provision of Sec.12 of C.P. Act. Jurisdiction is a post ground that is advanced after application of section meant for institution. Even if, the case constitute an action under 11(c) it requires a leave/permission by provision under section 11-2(b) statutorily, being the complainant outside the district.
12. The other point raised and vigorously contended, on the repudiation of the claim, it is no more dispute that policy issued and in force on the relevant time of accident, intimation lodged and surveyed but the settlement attracts rejection on short effective permit and driving license.
13. The accident occurred on dt.02.01.2014,during the valid currency of the policy No.163400/31/630000/1579, relating to commercial vehicle OD15-2144,which was plied by a driver named Sitaram Karna having D.L.No.OR-15-20060000361 reveals which has been authorized to drive light motor vehicle Non-transport w.e.f.26.12.2006 and not entitled to be eligible under the rule 71 of OMV rules. In this context both the learned lawyers relied on decision- National Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh in which it is held- Decision in Swaran Singh’s case is not applicable to cases other than third party risks. The present case is of own damage claim in view of the Sec.147 and 149 of the Act and that also amounts to violation of the terms and conditions of the tendered insurance policy. The vehicle being Maxi Cab, we assume statutory compliance is mandatory in nature. As a matter of fact, in view of the clear mandate, under section 3 of Motor Vehicles Act, the driver was not authorized or permitted to drive the insured vehicle in a public place and we are convinced that during this period, the driver did not hold at all an effective driving license as required in the terms and conditions governing the policy on the date of accident and a breach on the part of the claimant.
14. The other latches that has been raised and strenuously contended by the O.P is that the permit issued bearing No.CC/PP/15/482/12-13 against the vehicle No.OD15-2144 has been transferred in the name of the complainant w.e.f.dt.08.01.2014 after the accident and the occurrence happened on dt.02.01.2014,so the permit of the vehicle has not effective on the name of the complainant in view of the section 66,of M.V.Act 1988. That reads; Sec.66, necessity of permit-(1) 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 actual carrying any passengers or goods save in accordance with the conditions of a permit granted or counter signed by a………vehicle is being used.
15. MV Act 82- Transfer of permit- A permit shall not be transferable from one person to another except with the permission of the transport authority which granted the permit and shall not, without such permission, operate to confer on any person to whom a vehicle in the manner authorized by the permit”.
16. In this case, the complainant has not able to obtained effective permit within the time. The contract carriage permit was valid from 01.11.2012 to 31.10.2017, but was purchased prior to accident and was in-effacious at the material time. On such issues, we prefer to take reliability under decision of State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Cuttack in F.A.No.10 of 2013- National Insurance Company limited Vs. Dinesh Kumar Shah being a fit case to be relied on by us. Although complainant advanced the application of transfer not effectual by undue delay due to strike, which is not adduced by any documentary evidence in countenance of the above noted plea. Riddle, with such pit falls at complainants end, the case is hereby not allowed. as the complainant failed to produce the documentary support against pleas raised at his end and the O.Ps contested in giving documentary support for the flaws committed at petitioner end.
Thus in view of our discussion made above, the complaint filed by the complainant is devoid of any merit and it deserves no consideration, accordingly we hereby dismiss the same.
ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN FORUM THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE 2016.
I agree. I agree.
(S.Rath) (G.K.Rath) (P.Samantara)
MEMBER. MEMBER. PRESIDENT.
