This case has arisen out of an application U/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
The case of the complainant is that the complainant being owner of vehicle/Mahindra & Mahindra (Bolero Pik-up) vide Regd. No-WB59C/8998 purchased policy vide No-0314033122P102187218 from O.P/United India Insurance Company Limited, against a premium of Rs.23,858/-.
That on 01.06.2023 at about 8:00 PM in an attempt to save a bicycle rider complainant’s vehicle met with an accident as it hit a tree near Digna Polytechnic College situated on Itahar-Churamon Road & as a result the vehicle was damaged & he sustained simple injury.
That on 01.06.2023 the complainant informed the same to O.P.No:1&2 and filed insurance claim. Thereafter, complainant lodged written complaint vide Itahar P.S GD No-141/2023, dated 03.06.2023 & few days later he sent all connecting documents, bills, papers to O.P.No-1&2 and after his several requests an Investigator was appointed by O.P.No-1&2 who then evaluate the documents submitted by the complainant, visited the garage & verified the bills.
That on 09.11.2023 when the complainant contacted O.P.No-1&2 regarding the insurance claim, he was informed that his claim was rejected on the ground that the complainant had failed to submit the valid route permit on the date of accident, which appears unjustifiable & malicious, though said policy was renewed by O.P.No-1&2 thereafter after verifying & inspecting all documents. Had the documents not been valid, the said policy would have never been renewed.
That all the documents and permits were issued & prepared by O.P.No-3&4 and the complainant paid all fees to Soumen Chakraborty a Representative of O.P.No-3&4 on 24.06.2023, at the time of purchase and delivery of the said vehicle, but another fresh permit was issued on 24.08.2023 through Khokon Motors Works Pvt. Ltd.
The rejection of claim despite the authenticity of documents amounts to deficiency in service, hence this case praying for Rs.1,17,033/- as damage, Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation and Rs.9,000/- as litigation cost.
O.P.No:1&2 contested the case by filing W.V denying the case of the complainant & their main objection is that complainant was plying his vehicle on the road without valid permit on the date of accident dated 01.06.2023 & that they repeatedly asked the complainant to submit valid route permit to settle the claim but the complainant did not submit the route permit & this is clear violation of M.V.Act, 1988 as per policy terms & conditions, so they pray for dismissal of the case.
The case of O.P.No:3&4 as made out in their W.V is that the route permit can only be obtained from RTO by paying proper fees & it is up to the owner of the vehicle to apply & obtain the same and they are not responsible for applying or obtaining a route permit & that no person named Soumen Chakraborty works at their office & if the complainant had paid any amount of money to any third person named Soumen Chakraborty then it is not known to them, so the case may be dismissed against O.P.No:3&4, being unnecessary party.
Points for consideration is:-
- Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps which gives rise cause of action to file the complaint and the complainant is entitled to get the claim?
D e c i s i o n w i t h r e a s o n s
Admittedly, the complainant is the owner/purchaser of vehicle/Mahindra & Mahindra (Bolero Pick-up) vide Regd. No-WB59C/8998 & he purchased policy vide No-0314033122P102187218 from O.P/United India Insurance Company Limited, against a premium of Rs.23,858/- for his said vehicle.
The case & evidence of the complainant is that on 01.06.2023 at about 8:00 PM in an attempt to save a bicycle rider complainant’s vehicle met with an accident as it hit a tree near Digna Polytechnic College situated on Itahar-Churamon Road & as a result the vehicle was damaged & he sustained simple injury.
The further case & evidence of the complainant is that on 01.06.2023 he informed the same to O.P.No:1&2 and filed insurance claim & thereafter lodged a written complaint vide Itahar P.S GD No-141/2023, dated 03.06.2023 & few days later he sent all connecting documents, bills, papers to O.P.No-1&2 and after his several requests an Investigator was appointed by O.P.No-1&2 who then evaluate the documents submitted by the complainant, visited the garage & verified the bills.
The case & evidence of the complainant too is that on 09.11.20023 when the complainant contacted O.P.No-1&2 regarding the insurance claim, he was informed that his claim was rejected on the ground that the complainant had failed to submit the valid route permit on the date of accident, which appears unjustifiable & malicious, though said policy was renewed by O.P.No-1&2 thereafter on 24.08.2023 after verifying & inspecting all documents and had the documents not been valid, the said policy would have never been renewed.
On perusal of documents produced by complainant it is evident that the complainant’s vehicle can carry a load up to 1700KG & for such vehicle a specific route permit is required.
Undoubtedly & said route permit can only be obtained from Regional Transport Office (RTO) by paying proper fees & it is up to the owner of the vehicle, here this complainant to apply & obtain the same but the complainant had neither applied for obtaining route permit of the vehicle nor paid any amount of fees for obtaining the route permit, so the complainant was plying his vehicle on the road without valid route permit on the date of accident dated 01.06.2023, that’s why neither he submits the same to insurer along with other documents nor he could submit the route permit to the insurer on demand, so the claim was rejected for violation of provisions of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 as per the policy terms & conditions depicted below:-
Limitations as to use-
The policy covers use only under a permit within the meaning of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 or such a carriage falling under Subsection 3 of Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
It appears that the complainant obtained a fresh route permit & from the office of RTO on 24.08.2023 valid from 24.08.2023 to 23.08.2028. Though the complainant stated that it was issued through Khokan Motors Works Pvt. Ltd but same is not found from fresh permit itself.
As claimed by the dealer i.e O.P.No:3&4 it is well known practice that the dealer of the vehicle is responsible for registering the vehicle since registration is done through dealer’s portal & accordingly the dealer received the payments for the same & the vehicle was registered within the stipulated time period but O.P.No:3&4 are not responsible to apply for or obtaining a route permit. No document is produced by complainant regarding payment of any amount to the dealer for route permit. What the complainant has stated that he paid fees for route permit to dealer’s employee named Soumen Chakraborty but no such receipt is produced by the complainant on the other hand the dealer stated that there was no person named Soumen Chakraborty in their office & thus if the complainant had paid any amount of money to any third person named Soumen Chakraborty then it was not known to the dealer.
The complainant submits citations RE:Complaint Case No-C.C/215/2022 of DCDRC, Bangalore and CM No.4599/2019 of the High Court of J&K and Ladakh where several rulings have been referred.
Ld. Advocate of complainant pointed out to the observation of Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case titled ‘Amalendu Sahu V Oriental Insurance Company Limited’, reported as ‘AIR 2010 SCC 2090’ & prays for payment of compensation on a non-standard basis to the extent of 75%.
In that citation(s) the case as made out that the vehicle(s) initially had route permit which was/were not valid on the date of accident for non-renewal of the same in time, but in this case the vehicle in question was running without any route permit since registration till date of accident.
It is apparent that when the insurer asked the complainant to produce route permit for settlement of claim, then for the first time the complainant tried and procured route permit done on 24.08.2023 which is produce of afterthought.
Again we reiterate that the case laws referred were relating to pending renewal of route permit, is/are not applicable in this case as the facts of those case laws are different from the facts of this case.
Under above facts and discussion, we are of the considered view that there was/is no deficiency of service on the part of O.P.No:1&2/Insurance Company in repudiating the complainant’s claim for plying the vehicle without route permit on the date of accident & also there was no deficiency of service on the part of O.P.No:3&4/dealer of the vehicle for non obtainment of any route permit and as a result the case is liable to be dismissed.
In the result the case fails.
Hence, it is
O R D E R E D
that the C.C-59/2023 be and the same is dismissed on contest but without any cost.
Let a copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.
