DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH Complaint Case No.: 652 of 2010 Date of Inst: 07.10.2010 Date of Decision: 11.03.2011 Naushad Khan son of Late Sh.Muslim Khan r/o H.No.3248/1, Sector 41-D, Chandigarh. ---Complainant V E R S U S United India Insurance Co. Ltd., through its Office Incharge Motor Dealers Office, SCO No.149-150, Second Floor, Sector 8-D, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh-160008. ---Opposite Party QUORUM SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT SHRI ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI MEMBER PRESENT: Sh.Atul Kaushik, Adv. for complainant Sh.J.S.Bagga, Adv. for OP. --- PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT Sh.Naushad Khan has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein OP be directed to- i) Pay Rs.5 lacs as compensation for rendering deficient services along with interest @ 24% p.a. till its realization. ii) Any other relief as deemed fit by this Forum in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case. 2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that he got insured his vehicle (Toyota Innova Car) bearing Temp. Regd. No.CH-05(T) 8026 with OPs vide cover note No.727395 against the premium of Rs.21,522/-. The said insurance policy was valid from 17.03.2010 to 16.03.2011. for a sum assured of Rs.9,48,968/-. He purchased the said vehicle for commercial purposes for earning his livelihood. According to the complainant, the said vehicle met with an accident on 13.04.2010. The DDR dated 13.04.2010 (Annexure C-5) was lodged to this effect with the concerned police station. The complainant informed OP and submitted all the requisite documents for releasing the claim. The complainant got repaired the vehicle from M/s EM PEE Motors Ltd. (authorized service center), Chandigarh by paying Rs.1,38,524/- vide receipt dated 27.04.2010 (Annexure C-6). According to the complainant, instead of releasing the claim, his claim was filed as “No Claim” by the OP through letter dated 31.08.20010 on the ground that he has failed to produce the route permit as per provisions of Section 66(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act. It has been averred by the complainant that the vehicle was got duly registered with the Registering Authority, Chandigarh later on. In these circumstances, the present complaint was filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above. 3. In the reply filed by OP, it has been admitted that the vehicle of the complainant was insured for a declared insured sum of Rs.9,48,968/- under insurance policy which was valid from 17.03.2010 to 16.03.2011. Soon after receipt of the claim, a surveyor was appointed who assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.1,00,825/-. However, according to OP, on the date of accident i.e. 13.04.2010, the complainant was not holding a requisite contract carriage permit and therefore, the claim of the complainant was not payable as per the provisions of Section 66(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act. It has further been pleaded that the route permit (Annexure C-7) placed on record by the complainant was valid w.e.f. from 27.04.2010 to 28.10.2015. Thus, the vehicle was being used in violation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, the claim has been rightly filed as No Claim (Annexure C-7). In these circumstances, according to OP, there is no deficiency in service on their part and the complaint deserves dismissal. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including documents, annexures, affidavits etc. 5. The main defence of the OP is that the claim of the complainant was filed as “No Claim” on the ground that he has failed to produce the route permit on the date of accident and thus the claim of the complainant was not payable as per the section 66(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act. On the other hand, it has been argued by the learned counsel for the complainant that the accident did not occur due to the lack of the route permit and the purpose of taking the insurance policy is to indemnify the complainant for the loss and, therefore, the repudiation of the claim is not justified. Reference has been made to case titled as B.V. Nagaraju v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in II (1996) CPJ 28 (SC) wherein it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the insurance company cannot escape its liability completely where the misuse of the vehicle is somewhat irregular manner, but not so fundamental in nature so as to put an end to the contract, unless some factors existed which, by themselves, had gone to contribute to the causing of the accident. In the present case, the cause of accident has nothing to do with the absence of the route permit. Hence, insurance company cannot escape from its liability to indemnify the insured. 6. In view of the above stated facts, we are of the firm opinion that the claim of the complainant could not be repudiated in toto. The insurance company was required to settle the claim as per the guidelines for settlement of non-standard claims issued by the General Insurance Corporation. In a similar case titled as OIC Vs.s Sanjeev Kumar reported in II (2009) CPJ-356 (NC), the Hon'ble National Commission has held that in cases where the car was being used as taxi despite the fact that it was insured as a private car, the claim should be settled on non-standard basis and the complainant should be given compensation to the extent of 75% of the admissible claim. 7. In the present case, the surveyor has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.1,00,825/-. Thus, the claim of the complainant on the basis of non-standard basis comes to Rs.75,619/-. 8. In view of the above findings, the complaint is allowed with a direction to OP to pay a sum of Rs.75,619/- on the basis of non-standard basis to the complainant along with a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment. OP is also directed to pay a sum of Rs.7000/- as costs of litigation. 9. This order be complied with by the OP within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the OP shall be liable to pay the amount of Rs.85,619/- to the complainant along with penal interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization besides costs of litigation. 10. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced 11.03.2011 Sd/- (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT cm sd/- (ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI) MEMBER
| | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | , | | 
