BEFORE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CIRCUIT BENCH, RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR


Appeal No. 467/2008


The New India Assurance Co.Ltd., through its Jaipur Regional Office: 2nd Floor, Nehru Place, Tonk Road, Jaipur -302 015.

..Appellant-Opposite Party


VS


Arif Mohd. Pathan S/o Shri Amir Khan Pathan, R/o C-38, Baneda House, Gandhi Nagar, Udaipur- 313 001 (Raj)

..Respondent-Complainant


Before:

Mr. G.S. Hora, Presiding Member

Mr. Sikandar Punjabi, Member


Present:

Mr. Vizzy Agarwal, counsel for the Appellant

None appeared for the Respondent


ORDER Dated:29/07/2009


PER Mr. G.S. HORA, PRESIDING MEMBER


This appeal is against the order dated 31.1.2008 passed by the learned District Forum, Udaipur whereby the Appellant Assurance Co. was directed to pay to the Complainant a sum of Rs. 1,49,645/- along with interest @ 9% per annum + Rs. 1,500/- as litigation expenses.


The only point raised by the learned counsel for the Appellant is that at the time of accident, the Complainant had no permit of the vehicle whereas he was supposed to have permit as required u/s 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The learned counsel has referred to the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court published in 2005 (I) TAC page 4 National Insurance Co. vs Challa Bhaathamma. He has also taken us through Section 82 and 192A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. We do feel that if vehicle is driven without permit where permit is required u/s 66, the claim should not be allowed in view of the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court but in the instant case, the facts are different. In this particular case, the vehicle in question was purchased by the Complainant and got the registration certificate and the insurance transferred in his name. Earlier the vehile stood in the name of Anjali Biswas who was holding permit of the vehicle.

2


Along with joint application filed by the purchaser and the seller, affidavits of both were also filed before the RTO, Udaipur for transfer of permit. It appears from the file that the matter was put up before the RTO, Udaipur on 28.9.2005 and approval for transfer of permit was given subject to necessary entries in the record. Under these circumstances, if the vehicle met with an accident and the claim was allowed by the learned District Forum on 'Non-standard Basis', it cannnot be said that the order suffers from illegality or informity. 25% of the amount was deducted on the ground that till the date of accident, permit was not issued. In any case, it is a matter where the permit was issued after approval of transfer of permit, some formalities were required to be completed and by the time those formalities were completed, the vehicle met with an accident.


For the forgoing reasons, we do not want to interfere with the findings of the learned District Forum. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Appellant Assurance Co. fails and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.



Member Presiding Member



Hira Lal