Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/20/58

UNITED INDIA INSU.CO.LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

MANOJ CHHABRA - Opp.Party(s)

20 May 2024

ORDER

M. P. STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,                         

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

 

FIRST APPEAL NO. 58 OF 2020

(Arising out of order dated 14.11.2019 passed in C.C.No.09/2018 by District Commission, Neemuch)

 

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.

THROUGH BRANCH MANAGER,

BRANCH OFFICE-48 BANGLA ROAD,

TAGORE MARG, NEEMUCH (M.P.).                                                        …           APPELLANT.

 

         Versus

 

MANOJ CHHABRA,

S/O SHRI RAMESH CHAND CHHABRA,

USHAGANJ COLONY, MANASA,

TEHSIL-MANASA, DISTRICT-NEEMUCH (M.P.)

BRANCH OFFICE-RAWALBHATA,

DISTRICT-CHHITORGARH, RAJASTHAN                                                      ...     RESPONDENT.  

 

BEFORE :

            HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI                      :       ACTING PRESIDENT

            HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY              :    MEMBER

           

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

                Shri Deepesh Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant.

           Shri Nitin Jain, learned counsel for the respondent.

 

O R D E R

(Passed On 20.05.2024)

                        The following order of the Commission was delivered by A. K. Tiwari, Acting President: 

                  This appeal by the opposite party/appellant-United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (for short ‘insurance company’) is directed against the order dated 14.11.2019 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Neemuch (for short the ‘District Commission’) in C. C. No. 09/2018 whereby the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent (for short ‘complainant’) has been allowed.

 

-2-

2.                Briefly put, facts of the case are that the complainant’s passenger bus bearing registration number RJ-09 PA-3878 was insured with the insurance company for the period w.e.f. 14.08.2015 to 13.08.2016. The subject vehicle was on the way from Rawalbhata to Mandsaur on 28.05.2016 and due to short circuit in the bus fire broke out and the bus gutted in fire and damaged of which intimation was given to the fire brigade. The fire brigade extinguished the fire. The intimation was given to the insurance company. The insurance company appointed surveyor in the matter. It is submitted that the complainant spent Rs.4,56,872/- in repairs. The claim filed with the insurance company was repudiated by the insurance company on 14.12.2017 on the ground that at the time of accident the bus was not having valid permit.  The complainant therefore, alleging deficiency in service on part of insurance company filed complaint before the District Commission, seeking claim of Rs.4,56,872/-.

3.                The opposite party-insurance company resisted the complaint on the ground that the subject vehicle being a transport vehicle (passenger bus) at the time of accident was running without having any valid permit and therefore, its claim is not payable. It is submitted that on intimation being received from the complainant, the surveyor was appointed in the matter who assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.2,46,000/-. The surveyor further informed that the insured did not produce the permit and

-3-

authorization of the bus. The insurance company and the surveyors have written various letters to the insured complainant to submit valid and effective permit and authorization of the bus on the date of the accident but the complainant did not furnish the desired documents and as such the insurance company finally repudiated the claim as no claim on 14.12.2017. There has been no deficiency in service on part of the insurance company. It is therefore prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

4.                The District Commission allowing the complaint directed the insurance company to pay to the complainant Rs.2,46,000/- as assessed by the surveyor with Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as costs within a period of one month failing which the amount shall carry interest @ 7% p.a. from 15.03.2018 till payment.  

5.                Heard. Perused the record.

6.        Learned counsel for the opposite party/appellant-insurance company argued that the impugned order passed by the District Commission is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission and Hon’ble Supreme Court in their various judgments that a transport vehicle cannot run on road without having valid permit & authorization. He argued that the District Commission has committed material irregularity in not going the basis of repudiation of claim which as per documentary evidence available on record is justified. There has been

-4-

no deficiency in service on part of the insurance company. He therefore prayed for setting aside the impugned order.

7.                Learned counsel for the complainant/appellant argued that the District Commission after considering that the complainant’s vehicle which was not carrying passengers at the time of accident and as per provisions of Motor Vehicle Act can run without permit has rightly allowed the complaint directing the insurance company to pay the amount as assessed by the surveyor. He therefore supporting the impugned order prayed for dismissal of appeal.

8.                Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on going through the impugned order, the record of the District Commission and the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, we find that it has been categorically submitted by the opposite party/respondent that the subject vehicle at the time of accident was being driven without valid permit and authorization. This was the ground for repudiation taken by the opposite party/respondent in their repudiation letter.

9.                In the instant matter, the subject vehicle was insured with the opposite party insurance company for the period w.e.f. 14.08.2015 to 13.08.2016 under PCV 4 Wheeler Exceeding 6 or 3 Wheeler Exceeding 17 Package Policy (P-9). The subject vehicle was registered with RTO Chhitorgarh (Rajasthan) on 15.02.2016 bearing registration number RJ-09

-5-

PA-3878 (P-7). P-8 is Fitness Certificate for the period 31.08.2015 to 30.08.2016. P-10 is intimation to the police dated 29.05.2016. P-14 to P-23 are the bills for repairs. C-26 & C-27 are route permit issued by RTO Kota (Rajasthan for the period 11.03.2016 to 10.03.2021 from Kota to Borabas via Chhawani, Nayagaon, Daulatganj, Ratkankra two times per day.

10.              On the strength of provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, it is submitted and contended on behalf of complainant that any transport vehicle can run without permit when it was proceeding empty to any place for the purpose of repair. In support of his contention, he has filed document P-24 which is the letter dated 30.05.2016 of RTO Mandsaur addressed to the complainant stating that in reply to your application dated 30.05.2016 by which you sought permission for taking and coming back your passenger bus bearing registration number MP-14 PA-0193 from Mandsaur to Udaypur. As per Section 66(3) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for taking empty passenger bus for repairs no permission is required.

11.              In this connection it is pertinent to mention here that the subject vehicle was registered with RTO Chhitorgarh (Rajasthan) bearing registration number RJ-09 PA-3878 and permit was issued by RTO Kota (Rajasthan) for the period 11.03.2016 to 10.03.2021 from Kota to Borabas

-6-

via Chhawani, Nayagaon, Daulatganj, Ratkankra locally i.e. for 25.5 km two times per day. In his complaint, the complainant has stated that on 28.05.2016 when his empty bus was coming from Rawalbhata to Mandsaur for repairs, fire broke out in the bus due to short circuit and bus got damaged whereas in P-24 letter dated 30.05.2016 of RTO Mandsaur it is clear that the on 30.05.2016 i.e. after two days of incident complainant sought permission from RTO, Mandsuar for taking and coming back passenger bus bearing registration number MP-14 PA-0193 from Mandsaur to Udaypur.

12.              At one end he is stating that his empty bus bearing registration number RJ-09 PA-3878 was coming from Rawalbhata (Rajasthan) to Mandsaur (MP) for repairs on the other hand he sought permission from RTO Mandsaur (whereas his bus was registered with RTO Chhitorgarh, Rajasthan) for taking and coming back passenger bus bearing registration number MP-14 PA-0193 i.e. intentionally stating the old number from Mandsaur (MP) to Udaypur (Rajasthan) for repairs. If his bus required repairs in MP he has to take it to Rajasthan for repairs and if his bus required repairs in Rajasthan, he has to take it to MP for repairs, this logic is unacceptable.

 

-7-

13.              From the record, we find that the insurance company vide letters dated 19.09.2016 (R-1), 20.12.2016 (R-2), 12.10.2017 (R-3) and 07.11.2017 (R-4) repeatedly sought permit and other documents from the complainant but he failed to produce the same. Ultimately the insurance company vide letter dated 14.12.2017 (R-7) repudiated the claim as No Claim.

14.              Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which deals with ‘Necessity for permits’ is relevant for deciding the issue involved in the matter which reads thus:

                      Section 66. Necessity for permits:

                        (1)…..

                        (2) …..

                        (3) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall not apply—

 

(i) to any goods vehicle, the gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed 3,000 kilograms;

(p) to any transport vehicle while proceeding empty to any place for purpose of repair;

 

15.              Section 66(3)(p) provides that the provision of permit do not apply to any transport vehicle, while proceeding empty to any place for purpose of repair. Thus it is clear that in order to get benefit of this section with regard to his claim the complainant had obtained this certificate P-24 from RTO Mandsaur (MP). However, he failed to establish that his passenger mini bus was proceeding from Rajasthan to MP empty for

 

-8-

repairs in view of the aforesaid discrepancies. He has also not filed affidavit of repairer to whom he was taking the bus for repairs.

16.              Hon’ble National Commission in Sudershan Giri Vs United India Insurance Company Limited & Anr IV (2020) CPJ 3 (NC)Sudershan Giri (supra) has clearly held that vehicle being used without valid permit is fundamental breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy as also provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

17.              From the evidence on record, we find that admittedly, the complainant was using the subject vehicle without having a valid permit and authorization in MP as permit was valid locally from  Kota to Borabas via Chhawani, Nayagaon, Daulatganj, Ratkankra locally i.e. for 25.5 km two times per day in Rajasthan State as also have no authorization to run the subject vehicle in MP, which amounts to clear violation of Section 66(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as also a fundamental breach of policy terms and conditions. Thus, we find that the insurance company has not committed any deficiency in service while repudiating the claim on account of violation of fundamental breach of policy terms and conditions as also the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

18.              Therefore, in view of the aforesaid and on the basis of provisions of law, we find that the District Commission has grossly erred in

-9-

arriving a conclusion that in the instant case that the complainant’s vehicle could run without permit as also in allowing the complaint. We do not find any deficiency in service on part of the insurance company in repudiating the claim.

19.              In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is hereby set-aside. Consequently, the complaint is dismissed.

20.              In the result, this appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. No order as to costs.

 

              (A. K. Tiwari)                          (Dr. Srikant Pandey)

            Acting President                              Member