JUDGMENT Per Justice Sham Sunder , President This appeal has been filed by the appellant/complainant for enhancement of compensation, against the order dated 11.3.2011, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as the District Forum only), vide which it accepted the complaint and directed the OP, to pay a sum of Rs.75,619/- on the basis of non-standard basis, to the complainant, alongwith a sum of Rs.10,000/-, as compensation, for mental agony and harassment and Rs.7000/- as costs of litigation. It was further directed that in case, the amount was not paid within 45 days, from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, interest @ 18% from the date of filing the complaint till its realization, besides costs, shall be paid by the OP. 2. The complainant got insured his vehicle (Toyota Innova Car) bearing Temp. Regn. No.CH-05(T) 8026 with the OP, 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 an assured sum of Rs.9,48,968/-. It was stated that the said vehicle was purchased by the complainant for commercial purpose for earning his livelihood. The said vehicle met with an accident on 13.04.2010. The DDR dated 13.04.2010 (Annexure C-5) was lodged, in this regard, with the concerned Police Station. The complainant informed the OP and submitted all the requisite documents for releasing the claim, after getting the same repaired from M/s EM PEE Motors Ltd. (authorized service Centre), Chandigarh by paying Rs.1,38,524/- vide receipt dated 27.04.2010 (Annexure C-6). It was further stated that instead of releasing the claim, the same was filed as “No Claim” by the OP vide letter dated 31.08.2010, on the ground, that the complainant had failed to produce the route permit as per the provisions of Section 66(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act. It was further stated that the complainant got registered the vehicle with the Registering Authority, Chandigarh, later on. It was further stated that there was deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the OP. When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, a complaint was filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act). 3. In reply, the OP admitted that the said vehicle was insured with it for a sum of Rs.9,48,968/- under the insurance policy, which was valid from 17.03.2010 to 16.03.2011. It was stated that soon after the receipt of the claim, a surveyor was appointed, who assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.1,00,825/-. It was further stated that on 13.04.2010, when the vehicle met with an accident, the complainant was not having the 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 was further stated that the route permit (Annexure C-7) placed on record by the complainant, was valid from 27.04.2010 to 28.10.2015. It was further stated that the vehicle was being used in violation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. It was further stated that, under these circumstances, it was found that the complainant was not entitled to any claim. It was further stated that, as such, the OP was not deficient in rendering service. 4. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence and record of the case, the District Forum, accepted the complaint, in the manner, as stated, in the opening para of this judgment. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, was filed by the Appellant/Complainant for enhancement of compensation awarded. 6. We have heard the Counsel for the appellant, and have gone through the record of the case, carefully. 7. The Counsel for the appellant, submitted that, no doubt, on 13.4.2010, when the vehicle met with an accident, he was not having the requisite Contract Carriage Permit. He further submitted that the complainant had already applied for the Contract Carriage Permit which was ultimately issued, for the period from 27.4.2010 to 28.10.2015. He further submitted that, as such, the District Forum was wrong in allowing the insured amount to the tune of Rs.75,619/- on non-standard basis. He further submitted that the complainant was entitled to the full amount of repairs, which was spent by him, for repair of the accidental vehicle. He, thus, submitted that the compensation be enhanced. 9. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the appellant, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. Undisputedly, the complainant purchased the vehicle, in question, for commercial purpose. There is also, no dispute, that the vehicle was got insured with the OP, under the insurance policy, referred to above. Admittedly, the vehicle met with an accident on 13.4.2010. This factum is not denied that, on that date, the complainant was not having the Contract Carriage Permit. The very fact that he had applied for passing the vehicle vide application C-4 on 5.4.2010, did not mean that he had been granted the Contract Carriage Permit. For plying a commercial vehicle on the road, a Contract Carriage Permit was required. As such, the complainant was plying the vehicle, in violation of the provisions of Section 66(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988. Violation of such a provision was certainly not germane to the accident. In other words, it had no nexus with the accident, which took place on 13.4.2010. However, in B.V. Nagaraju Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. II(1996)CPJ28(SC), the principle of law, laid down, was to the effect, that the Insurance Company cannot escape its liability completely where the misuse of vehicle was in 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 OIC Vs S.Sanjeev Kumar II(2009)CPJ 356(NC), the Hon’ble National Commission 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. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. In the instant case also, as stated above, violation of the provisions of Section 66(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 i.e. non possession of the Contract Carriage Permit, in respect of plying the commercial vehicle, was not fundamental, to the accident, nor it had any nexus with the same. It was, under these circumstances, that the District Forum came to the conclusion, that, on the basis of the principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, compensation on non-standard basis was required to be granted to the complainant. The surveyor, in this case, had assessed the loss, to the vehicle, to the tune of Rs.1,00,825/-. 75% of this amount came to be Rs.75619/-. Thus, there is no ground for enhancement of the compensation, awarded by the District Forum. The order of the District Forum, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission. 11. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs, at the preliminary stage. 12. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. The file be consigned to record room.
| | HON'BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT | , | |
