Haryana

StateCommission

A/599/2014

Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd - Complainant(s)

Versus

Vinod - Opp.Party(s)

Vinod Arya

21 Nov 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

                                                         First Appeal No.599 of 2014

Date of Institution: 11.07.2014

                                                               Date of Decision: 21.11.2016

 

Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd., E.8, EPIP, RIICO, Industrial Area Sitapura, Jaipur (Rajasthan) through its Legal Officer Vishal Gupta & on behalf of Branch Manager Plot NO.55 (B), 2^nd Floor, Krishna Tower, Neelam Bata road, NIT, Faridabad (Haryana).

…..Appellant

Versus

 

Vinod S/o Sh.Dhani Ram R/o H.No.136, gothra Mobatabad, Tehsil and District Faridabad, (Haryana).

                                      …..Respondent

 

CORAM:             Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.

                             Mr. Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.                                                                                                                                           

Present:              Shri V.K.Arya, Advocate counsel for appellants.

                             None for the respondent.

                                                   O R D E R

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

It was alleged by the complainant that he got his vehicle bearing registration No.HR-38/M-3476 insured from opposite party (O.P.) No.1.  The insurance policy was valid from 17.02.2009 to 16.02.2010.  On 27.12.2009 at about 07.30 p.m. his vehicle truck/Dumper was going from Pali Crusher Zone to Narnaul via Dharuhera.  A resident of village Santlaka Bhiwadi Rajasthan died in an accidwnt with other vehicle and mob of 20-25 persons blocked the road. Out of them 4-5 persons gave beating to his driver and set his truck on fire due to which  he suffered loss to the tune of Rs.11,53,240/- as per estimate prepared by Lucky Automobile Authorized, Service Station, Bhiwadi.  FIR about this incident was also registered at Police Station (P.S.) Bhiwadi, Rajasthan.  He submitted claim with the O.Ps., but, the same was repudiated on the ground that the incident took place in Rajasthan.

2.      O.P.No.1 filed reply controverting his averments and alleged that the truck was having permit to ply within the jurisdiction of Haryana only, whereas this incident took place at Bhiwadi, District Alwar, Rajasthan.  In this way he was plying truck without route permit in Rajasthan and violated the terms and conditions of insurance policy.  He did not suffer loss as alleged by him and that was highly inflated. He was not entitled for any compensation and the complaint be dismissed.

3.      After hearing both the parties, Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad (In short “District Forum”) allowed the complaint vide order dated 05.05.2014 and observed as under-

“Resultantly, an award of Rs.7,50,000/- (Rs. Seven Lakhs Fifty Thousands only) with interest @ 9% p.a. from, the date of complaint i.e. 17.08.2010, till the date of payment is passed in favour of the complainant against respondent No.1.  Respondent NO.1 is further directed to pay Rs.2200/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.”

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom appellant-O.P No.1. has preferred this appeal.

5.      None has appeared on behalf of respondent since last seven approximately hearings. It is already 3.00 P.M. but, none has appeared on behalf of the respondent. The appeal relates to the year 2014.  So, arguments of only appellant’s counsel are heard.  File perused.

6.      Learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company vehemently argued that from the perusal of route permit Ex.20 it is clear that complainant was allowed to ply his truck within the jurisdiction of Haryana only, whereas accident took place in Rajasthan. When he was not having any route permit to ply truck in Rajasthan, he violated terms and conditions of insurance policy and is not entitled for compensation. Learned District Forum wrongly allowed the complaint and impugned order dated 05.05.2014 be set aside.  In support of his arguments he placed reliance upon the opinion of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court expressed in MFA No.8470/2012 (MVC)  titled as Abhishek Vs. SRI. K.B.Thippeswamy decided on 11.04.2014 and opinion of Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition No.2476 of 2012 titled as New India Assurance Vs. Birbal decided on 06.02.2014. 

7.      This argument is of no avail.  Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court has clearly opined in FAO No.3859 of 2009 titled as National Insurance Company vs Rajender Giri and others decided on 12.10.2011 that if a person is having a permit to ply any vehicle in particular area but has gone beyond that area it cannot be presumed

that he was plying vehicle without permit and is not entitled for any compensation. In that case a person was having a route permit to ply his vehicle in Rajasthan but came to Haryana and met with an accident.  Insurance company alleged that his request about compensation be declined but Hon’ble High Court negated those arguments. Present case is squarely covered by the opinion of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in aforesaid case law. Appellant cannot derive any benefit from Sri Abhishek’s case and New India Assurance company Ltd Vs. Birbal Singh’s  case (supra)  because they are based on different facts. It is opined therein that if any person is not having permit to ply any vehicle in a public place then he is not entitled for any compensation.  It was not opined therein that if a person is having permit to ply vehicle in particular area and has gone beyond the same then he is entitled for the same or not. These cases are not helpful to the appellant. The findings of learned District forum are well reasoned based on law and facts and cannot be disturbed. Resultantly appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed.

8.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.

 

November 21st, 2016             Diwan Singh Chauhan            R.K.Bishnoi,                                                                           Member                                  Judicial Member                                                                     Addl. Bench                            Addl.Bench                

S.K.