DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

Ram Partap, H.No.567, Sector 18-B, Chandigarh.

                                                                                    ---Complainant

V E R S U S

1]          United India Insurance Co. Ltd., SCO 149-50, Top Floor, Sector 8, Chandigarh

2]          United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 24, Whites Road, Chennai 600 014

3]          Sh.Sandeep Kumar Arora, Sureveyor & Loss Assessor, Licnse No.SLA-72804, H.No.3096, Sector 44-D, Chandigarh.

 ---Opposite Parties

BEFORE:            SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA                    PRESIDENT

                        SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA                   MEMBER

                        SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU            MEMBER

Argued By:            Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate for the complainant

Sh.J.S.Bagga , Advocate for the OPs.

PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

1]             Complainant (hereinafter referred to as CC for short) has preferred the present complaint against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as OPs for short) on the ground that the CC had purchased a brand new Auto-Rickshaw (LPG) of Bajaj Make from M/s Pratap Auto (India) Pvt. Ltd., Showroom No.1074-75, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh.  The said vehicle was allotted a Temporary Registration Number as CH-32 (T) 2968 with Engine No.AAMBSK16145 and Chassis No.MD2AAAMZZSWK13486 on 03.02.2010 vide Invoice No.AM02/01189, dated 03.02.2010.

                The CC had submitted the file for permanent registration with Chandigarh Registering Authority on 17.2.2010 and was issued a Slip by the Registering Authority, Chandigarh, valid upto 15.3.2010.

                The CC had got the new LPG Auto-Rickshaw bearing Temp. Regd. No.CH-32 (T) 2968 insured from OP-1 vide Cover Note No.609117, dated 03.02.2010, effective for the period 03.02.2010 upto 02.02.2011.  That the CC has also applied for contract carriage permit with State Transport Authority, Chandigarh on 15.2.2010 and the same was issued to the CC, valid for the period from 29.3.2010 to 28.3.2015. 

                The above mentioned vehicle met with an accident on 28.2.2010 at around 1.00 A.M. and the matter was reported to Police Station Sector 26, Chandigarh vide DDR No.66, dated 28.2.2010.  The CC had also informed the Insurance Company about the accident and after due verification and assurance, got the same repaired from M/s Pratap Auto (India) Pvt. Limited, Sector 22, Chandigarh’s Workshop.  CC spent an amount of Rs.10,550/- on the repairs vide Cash Memo No.WS/02510, dated 24.3.2010. 

                CC has alleged in his complaint that the OPs have failed to reimburse the amount of money spent by him on the repairs of his damaged vehicle, though CC had submitted all the required documents like copy of RC, Driving License, Insurance, and Permit along with affidavit as required by the OPs.  Having failed to process the claim even after the passage of Three Months by the OPs, CC is aggrieved by their act and has sought the relief of refund of Rs.10,550/- spent by him on the repair of his vehicle. 

2]             On notice, OP Nos.1 & 2 filed their collective versions raising preliminary objections to the fact that the present complaint is not maintainable on the grounds that the claim of the complainant has been repudiated on legal and factual grounds by the answering OPs. 

                It is further mentioned that the CC was not holding the requisite contract carriage permit on the date of accident i.e. 28.2.2010 and the same was issued on 31.3.2010 by the State Transport Authority, Chandigarh and the same was valid for the period 29.3.2010 to 28.3.2015. The CC was not authorized to drive the said vehicle on Public Places/Roads in absence of the requisite permit. 

                OPs have also mentioned Section 66 (1) of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, wherein it is mentioned that “No owner of Motor Vehicle shall use or permit the use of vehicle as transport vehicle in a public place whether or not such vehicle is actually carrying passengers or goods save in accordance with the conditions of permit granted…” 

                Further, OPs have also cited Section 81(1) of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, which primarily deals with the duration and renewal of the permits.  The said section also explains the effective date, to be the date of issuance or renewal and valid for a period of 5 years from the said date of issuance or renewal.  Hence, the OPs have taken the stand that as the date of issuance of the permit of the vehicle in question is 31.3.2010 and the same is effective from 28.3.2010 whereas the accident took place on 28.2.2010. The remaining paras of the complaint are admitted as the same being the matter of record. 

                The OPs have denied that at no point of time they have promised the complainant that his loss would be indemnified and the repudiation of the claim of the CC was made as he had violated the terms & conditions of the policy as well as the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act.  Having acted in a purely  legal manner, OPs deny the claim of the complainant. 

                OP-3 on his part has filed a brief affidavit citing only the fact that he has conducted the survey of accidental vehicle bearing Regd. No.CH-32(T) 2968 belonging to the CC on 02.03.2010.  The Survey Report was submitted to the Insurer and the power of admissibility of claim lies with the Insurer Company. 

3]             Parties led their respective evidences.

4]             Having gone through the entire complaint and version of OPs and the evidence of the parties, we are of the considered view that the CC is successful in proving deficiency in service on the part of OPs on the following grounds:-

i)         The only point of contention is that whether the OPs were correct in denying the claim of the CC on the ground that the vehicle in question was being driven without a valid contract Carriage Permit, which was the main ground for repudiation of his claim as being declared “No Claim” by OP-1 & 2 through their letter dated 07.05.2010.

ii)    Though the OPs have cited Section 66(1) of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, which speaks that “No owner of a Motor Vehicle shall use or permit the use of vehicle as a Transport Vehicle in a public place whether or not such vehicle is actually carrying passengers or goods save in accordance with the conditions of the permit granted authorizing him the use of the vehicle in that place in the manner in which the vehicle is being used.”

It is important to visit the said Section where it is clearly mentioned that a Motor Vehicle remains a Motor Vehicle and does not become a Transport Vehicle until and unless a valid permission is granted by way of a Permit issued by the concerned authorities.  The OPs has wrongly construed that the vehicle in question was being plied as a Transport Vehicle even though the vehicle in question was having an effective temporary Registration No.CH-32(T) 2968, pending the issuance of Registration Certificate. The CC had applied for the permanent registration of the said vehicle with the authorities on 17.2.2010 during the one month effective period of the temporary registration number. 

iii)       That at the time of accident the vehicle in question was not being plied as a transport vehicle by the CC, this fact is reflected in the DDR REPORT, dated 28.2.2010 lodged at Police Station Sector 26, Chandigarh, wherein no presence of any passenger is reported. Even the OPs have failed to establish by bringing on record any independent investigation report that could establish the correctness of their assumption, qua this fact.

iv)      Though the fact about the CCs intention of using the vehicle in question as a passenger carrier came to be known only after his having applied for the same. But this fact too came into being only after the CC was issued a proper Reg. No. i.e. CH04-I-4154 issued on 25.3.2010. 

It is very much clear from the copy of Contract Carriage Permit tendered by the CC along with the complaint wherein it is clearly mentioned as 29.3.2010 its date of issue and valid upto 28.3.2015, which clearly shows that the Contract Carriage Permit could only be prepared after the issue of the Registration Number of the vehicle in question, and not before its issuance at all.  

                    Our view with regard to the present status of the vehicle in question is that when the said vehicle was not even registered, there is no reason for the OPs to believe that the Motor Vehicle in question was a Transport Vehicle.  Nor they have produced any document from their own records to substantiate their view.  However, in the case titled “RAJENDRA PRASAD TIWARY Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY & ORS., First Appeal No. 561 of 2003, Decided on 28.1.2004, I (2007) CPJ 391, Hon’ble Jharkhand SCDRC, Ranchi, has expressed its views that in case of no breach of terms & conditions of the policy having been committed by the claimant, the repudiation of claim of the applicant by the Insurance Company on the ground that the said vehicle did not have the registration certificate at the time of happening of the accident, was wrong. 

5]             From the above facts, it is very much clear that the OPs have wrongly presumed about the status of the vehicle in question to be a public transport vehicle at the time of cause of action i.e. happening of the accident of the vehicle.  Hence, their denial of entertaining the claim of the CC is wrongly construed and without any proof available with them.  CC not having faulted with any of the terms & conditions, not supplied to the CC by the OPs, could not be the ground to repudiate the claim of the CC.

6]             Hence, on the above grounds, we allow the present complaint and direct the OPs No.1 & 2 to pay the CC an amount of Rs.10,550/- as claimed by the CC.  

                This order be complied with by OPs No.1 & 2 within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which OPs No.1 & 2 shall be liable to pay an interest @18% p.a. on the amount of Rs.10,550/- from the date of order till its actual payment to the complainant.

                Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

30.08.2011

                                                           (LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

(MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER 

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER