Karnataka

StateCommission

A/887/2018

Umesh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Manjula N.A.

25 Jan 2024

ORDER

Date of Filing: 13.06.2018

Date of Disposal:25.01.2024

 

BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)

 

DATED:25.01.2024

 

PRESENT

 

HON’BLE Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH: PRESIDENT

 

Mr K B SANGANNANAVAR: JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

Mrs DIVYASHREE M:LADY MEMBER

 

 

APPEAL No.887/2018

Mr Umesh Kumar

S/o Late H Ramayya

Aged about 43 years

R/o D No.1-52/1

Urwastore, Sunkada Katte

Ashoknagar Post

Mangaluru-575 006                                                          Appellant

(By Smt Manjula N A, Advocate)

 

-Versus-

 

M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,

No.70, K S Rao Road

Opp :  Popular Building

Hampankatta

Mangaluru-575 001

Rep. by its

Divisional Senior Branch Manager

(By Mr K R Shivananada, Advocate)                                    Respondent

 

:ORDER:

 

Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT

 

1.       This Appeal is filed under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 by the OP, aggrieved by the Order dated 19.05.2018 passed in Consumer Complaint No.63/2017 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mangalore(hereinafter referred to as the District Forum).

2.       Heard the arguments of the learned Counsels on record.  Perused the Impugned Order, Grounds of Appeal and secured records from the District Forum.

3.       The District Forum after enquiring into the matter, Dismissed the Complaint by considering the contention of the OP that the vehicle had no valid permit to ply.

4.       Being not satisfied with this Order, Complainant is in Appeal contended that the District Forum failed to take into consideration of the fact that the vehicle was Temporarily Registered and RC of permanent Registration was not issued at the time of accident and failed to consider that the Respondent/OP did not dispute that the vehicle was driven to Mangaladevi Temple for Pooja at about 5 pm to fill Petrol, he drove the said vehicle to Bejai Petrol Bunk while taking reverse, it hit the compound wall and suffered damage.   The District Forum ought to have read Section 66(3)(P) of MV Act in its correct perspective and this provision make it clear that the Permit is not required to any empty Transport vehicle while proceeding to any place.   Further contended that the District Forum ought to have considered the reply given by the Deputy Transport Commissioner and Senior Regional Transport officer and Public Information Officer, Mangaluru, D.K. which confirms that the RC & FC are required to be submits to get the Permit.   The District Forum ought to have held that Permit would be issued only after submitting the RC, FC, insurance and Tax paid Receipt to the concerned Authority.  Thus appellant seeks to set aside the impugned order by allowing the Appeal.

5.       The allegation of the complainant that he has been insisting for early settlement was not complied and even after one year without any valid reason the OP has repudiated the claim on business grounds.  

6.       The stand taken by the OP in the version that after securing the documents from the Complainant and while scrutinising the same, it was found that as on the date of accident i.e., on 02.12.2015, the vehicle had no valid Permit, plying a vehicle duly registered as Tourist/Transport Vehicle, without a valid Permit is violation of the Policy condition and under Section 66(1) of Motor Vehicle Act prohibits that 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 actually carrying any passengers or goods save in accordance with the conditions of a permit granted or countersigned by RTO or STA or any prescribed authority authorising him to use of the vehicle in that place in the manner the vehicle is being used. 

7.       It is an admitted fact that complainant had purchased a Maruti Suzuki 5 Star Motor Cab for Rs.3,75,388/- plus extra fitting charges of Rs.41,764/- on 28.11.2015 by availing finance from Vijaya Bank, Ashok Nagar Branch, Mangaluru and the same was registered with RTO bearing Temporary Registration No.KA-19/TR-006-114/2015-16.  The said vehicle was insured with OP by paying premium of Rs.17,985/- and as per policy No.0708013115P110169016 valid from 28.11.2015 to 27.11.2016.  On 02.12.2015 at 5.00 pm, when the Complainant was driving the vehicle to Mangalaadevi Temple for Pooja, it hit the ‘compound wall’ at Bejai New Road, Mangalore resulting in extensive damage to the vehicle and intimated about the incident to the OP, thereafter got repaired the vehicle through Authorised dealer M/s Bharath Auto Cars Limited, Kuntikan, Mangalore, with Estimated Repair Cost being Rs.30,947.77 and sent the Claim to the OP.  OP taken a stand that after receipt of claim he entrusted survey of said vehicle to an IRDA approved Surveyor, viz., Mr H Raghuveer Rao to assess the actual loss caused to the vehicle due to the alleged accident and he had assessed the loss at Rs.13,743.88. 

8.       On perusal of the records it is seen that Ex-R1 is the Policy issued by OP to the Complainant, Ex-R2 is the Motor claim Form submitted by the Complainant and Ex-R3 is the final Motor Survey Report in which Rs.13,660/- is the assessed as the liability of OP towards repairs.  Further Ex-C2 is the Temporary Certificate of Registration issued to this vehicle of the complainant valid till 29.12.2015 and the stipulated fee has also been paid for this Temporary Registration on 30.11.2015.

9.       The contention taken by the OP is that, plying a vehicle duly registered as Tourist/Transport Vehicle, without valid Permit is the violation of Policy condition, as per Sec 66 (1) of Motor Vehicle Act.  For the sake of convenience, Sec 66(1) is excerpted hereunder -

(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 actually carrying any passengers or goods save in accordance with the conditions of a permit granted or countersigned by a Regional or State Transport Authority or any prescribed authority authorising him the use of the vehicle in that place in the manner in which the vehicle is being used:Provided further that a  stage carriage permit may, subject to any conditions that may be specified in the permit, authorise the use of the vehicle as a goods carriage either when carrying passengers or not; Provided also that a goods carriage permit shall, subject to any conditions that may be specified in the permit, authorise the use of the vehicle for the carriage of goods for or in connection with a trade or business carried on by him.

 

10.     Per contra, the contention taken by the Complainant is that the exception is pertaining to a circumstances when the vehicle was taken for the purpose of repairs, as per Sec 66(3)(p) of Motor Vehicle Act.  For sake of convenience, section 66 (3)(p) is excerpted hereunder -

     66 (3) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall not apply

     (p) - to any transport vehicle while proceeding empty to any place for purpose of repair.

11.     Taking into consideration of the fact that the vehicle was  permitted to run temporarily, holds good to cover the damage caused to the vehicle under the Insurance Policy obtained. Actually, the Complainant had incurred an expenditure of Rs.30,947.77 towards repair of the vehicle. OP after receipt of claim, appointed the IRDA approved Surveyor to assess the damage caused to the vehicle and the Surveyor had assessed the damage caused to the vehicle at Rs.13,743.88, thereafter, taken a ground of violation of Terms and Conditions of the Policy. In as much as the vehicle is having valid insurance and alleged damage/accident reported by the insured vehicle owner has been duly taken cognizance of by the Insurance Company, who in turn, had directed its Surveyor to assess the damage caused to the vehicle and to submit report, accordingly, he had  also inspected the vehicle and submitted his report/assessment, wherein, he has estimated an approx. expenses to the tune of Rs.13,743.88 which the Insurance company honour bound to implement in toto.  Also there cannot be a vacuum in the insurance coverage between temporary registration of the vehicle and subsequent permanent registration. Thus, we are of the considered view that the Complainant had met his part of the expected obligation to own & ply a vehicle and the very purpose of paying a huge Insurance premium is defeated, if the Insurer finds a trivial of reason to repudiate the Claim. In the circumstances, impugned order requires to be interfered with by setting aside the impugned order by allowing the Appeal since the vehicle was  permitted to run temporarily, in other words it is a non-transport vehicle and  hence, it will be appropriate to award a sum of Rs 13,360/- towards repair of the vehicle as per final Survey Report. Hence, the following

O R D E R

Appeal is partly allowed. Consequently, Impugned Order dated 19.05.2018 passed in Consumer Complaint No.63/2017 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mangaluru is hereby set aside and directing the OP to pay a sum of Rs.13,660/- towards Repair charges of the vehicle along with cost of Rs.5,000/- to the Complainant, within one month from the Date of this Order. Failing which, said amount carries interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of claim till realisation.

Return the LCR forthwith to the District Commission.

Send a copy of this Order to the District Forum and all other concerned, immediately.

 

Lady Member                        Judicial Member                      President

*s