Tripura

StateCommission

A/15/1

The Divisional Manager , The oriental Insurance Co.ltd - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri. Paritosh Rudrapal & 3 others. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr P.k Debnath

23 May 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

TRIPURA

 

APPEAL CASE No.A/15/1

 

The Divisional Manager,

The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd.

44/2, Central Road, Agartala,

West Tripura, Pin-799001.

                   ….    ….    ….    ….    Appellant-O.P. No.1.

                   Vs

1.Sri Paritosh Rudrapal, S/O. Sri Prabhat Rudrapal,

Vill-Dasda Laxmipur, P.O-Dasda Bazar, P.S-Kanchanpur,

District-North Tripura, Pin-799271.

               ….    ….    ….    ….    Respondent-complainant.

2. General Manager, Tripura Other Backward Classes,

Co-operative Development Corporation Ltd.,

Lake Chowmuhani, Agartala-799001.

 

3. The Joint Transport Commissioner, State Transport Authority,

Agartala, West Tripura-799001.

 

4. The Manager, M/S Ramkrishna Engineering Works,

Head Office Chittaranjan Road, Agartala-799001.

                                ….    ….    ….    ….    Proforma-O.Ps..

 

PRESENT :

       

             HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.BAIDYA,

             PRESIDENT,

             STATE COMMISSION

                          

                  MRS. SOBHANA DATTA,

             MEMBER,

               STATE COMMISSION.

               

For the Appellant                  :      Mr.P.K.Debnath,Adv.

For the O.P. No-1                 :      Mr.M.K.Roy,Adv.

For the Proforma O.P. No-2   :      Mr.P.K.Pal,Adv & Mr.P.Chakraborty,Adv.

For the Proforma O.P. No-3   :      Mr.N.Mukharjee,Adv.

For the Proforma O.P. No-4   :      Mr.A.L.Saha,Adv. & Mr.A.Saha,Adv &  

                                                 Mr.K.nandi,Adv.

Date of Hearing                    :     23.05.2015.

Date of delivery of Judgment  :     22.06.2015.

J U D G M E N T

 

S.Baidya,J,

            This appeal filed on 08.01.2015 under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act., 1986 by the appellant is directed against the judgment dated 01.12.2014 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, (in short District Forum), West Tripura, Agartala in case No.C.C-03 of 2014 whereby the Ld. District Forum allowed the complaint filed under Section 12 of the C.P.Act, 1986 and directed the O.P.No.1, the appellant herein to pay Rs.1,23,044/- to the complainant for the loss sustained by him towards damage of the vehicle and also directed the O.P. No.1 to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment together with Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation with a further direction to pay the amount mentioned above within six weeks from the date of judgment, failing which the entire amount will carry interest @ 9% p.a. till the payment is made.        

2. The case of the appellant-O.P.No.1 as narrated in the memo of appeal, in brief, is that the vehicle No.TR-01-J-7998 (Temporary Registration) was insured with the appellant-Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. vide policy No.322700/31/Pol/2012/19635 w.e.f. 17.02.2012 to 16.02.2013 for the sum assured (IDV) Rs.3,22,196/- and on receipt of intimation of fire-accident over telephone on 02.03.2012 and submission of the Motor Claim Form on 24.03.2012 and the letter dated 05.06.2012, the appellant-Insurance Company issued a letter dated 13.06.2012 to the respondent-complainant to submit the relevant documents i.e. Route Permit etc. of the alleged vehicle and accordingly, some documents were received by the appellant on 18.06.2012 from the respondent-complainant and on that date the appellant issued a letter to the Officer-In-charge, Pecharthal Police Station,Unakoti, Kailashahar seeking police investigation report and the appellant received the same on 19.06.2012 and thereafter the appellant on 26.06.2012 appointed a surveyor Sri Sankar Roy who assessed the damage caused to the vehicle and submitted the final survey report on 30.07.2012 assessing the loss on repairing basis for Rs.1,89,712/- and on Cash-Loss basis for Rs.1,23,044/- for the damages of the accidental vehicle.                                                 
3. It has also been alleged in the memo of appeal that on receipt of the survey report the appellant issued a letter dated 31.08.2012 to the respondent-complainant to opt one calculation method of assessment and in response to the said letter, the complainant replied accepting the method of Cash-Loss basis for Rs.1,23,044/- on 28.11.2012.
4. It has also been alleged that the appellant intended to settle the claim on the basis of valid Route Permit of the vehicle of the complainant permissible under the M.V.Act, 1988 and thereafter, the appellant received on 11.03.2013 the verification report pertaining to the Route Permit No.F.XIV-52/STA/2012/420 against the Chassis No.MAIFB2MCRC6A36414 of the said vehicle from the Investigator Sri Debabrata Saha who has received the said verification report through the process of RTI Act, 2005 from the office of the Joint Transport Commissioner, Government of Tripura, Agartala and as per said verification report dated 23.02.2013 of the Transport Department, no permit has been issued against the said vehicle.
5. It has also been alleged in the memo of appeal that the respondent-complainant could not submit the proper and valid Route Permit of the said vehicle in time and in the meantime the appellant received a demand notice from the learned counsel of the complainant on 18.11.2013 with some documents and the copy of Offer of Permit of the said vehicle which is found as not proper and valid one.
6. It has also been alleged that the said vehicle was plying with the invalid Route Permit which was not permissible under the insurance policy of the said vehicle and thereby, the owner of the said vehicle violated the conditions of the insurance policy and also violated the provisions of Section 66(1) of M.V.Act and as such, the appellant having no liability repudiated the claim of the complainant-respondent.
7. It has also been alleged that the respondent being the complainant then lodged the complaint under Section 12 of the C.P.Act before the Ld. District Forum and the Ld. District Forum considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidences allowed the complaint and passed the impugned judgment, in spite of the fact that the complainant had no valid Route Permit and thereby being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment, the O.P. No.1 being the appellant has preferred the instant appeal assailing the judgment of the Ld. District Forum and also praying for setting aside of the impugned judgment on the grounds that the Ld. Forum committed gross miscarries of justice being failed to understand the terms of insurance policy which covers only under a valid permit within the meaning of the M.V.Act, 1988, that the Ld. Forum failed to appreciate that actually no Route Permit was issued against the vehicle, that the Ld. Forum misunderstood and misconstrued the implication of the relevant fact concerning the Offer of Permit and erroneously passed the impugned judgment holding that the Offer of Permit is treated as a temporary Route Permit for a period of 180 days from the date of issue of the Offer of Permit, that the Ld. Forum totally failed to understand the nature and merit of the case and passed the impugned judgment without any basis and arbitrarily which cannot be sustained in the eye of law and as such, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal.           

Points for consideration.

8.       The points for consideration are (1) whether the Ld. District Forum was proper, legal and justified in passing the impugned judgment and (2) whether the judgment under challenge in this appeal should be set aside as prayed for by the appellant.      

                         Decision with Reasons.

9.       Both the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity.

10. At the outset, the learned counsel for the appellant referring to the two decisions reported in AIR 2013 Calcutta 123 and also in AIR 2012 Supreme Court 184 submitted that admittedly, the respondent-complainant had no regular Route Permit to ply his vehicle on the road. He also submitted that the vehicle of the complainant was covered under the valid insurance policy on the relevant time and date, but for plying the vehicle on the road a valid Route Permit either temporary or in regular form was necessary. He also submitted that without obtaining the valid Route Permit in any manner the complainant plied his vehicle on the road and thereby he violated, not only the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, but also violated the mandatory provision of law embodied in Section 66(1) of the M.V.Act, 1988.  
11. The learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that when the appellant-Insurance Company was ready to settle the claim of the complainant, at that time the appellant received a verification report from the Investigator Sri Debabrata Saha who obtained the said report from the State Public Information Officer to the effect that no Route Permit was issued concerning the vehicle of the complainant. He also submitted that a valid Route Permit for plying a vehicle on the road is mandatory under Section 66(1) of the M.V.Act, but the complainant without obtaining such Route Permit got his vehicle plied on the road and as the said act of the complainant was in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and also violative of Section 66(1) of the M.V.Act, the appellant- insurance company had no liability for such damage caused by fire accident to the vehicle of the complainant and as such, the insurance company rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant. He also submitted that the Ld. District Forum failed to appreciate the evidence, the facts and circumstances of the case and the relevant provisions of law and passed the impugned judgment erroneously which cannot be sustained in the eye of law and therefore, is liable to be set aside.
12. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent-complainant submitted that the Offer of Permit issued by the Motor Vehicle department was valid for 180 days within which the complainant was under the legal obligation to get his vehicle registered and also to obtain a valid Route Permit concerning his vehicle. He also submitted that the complainant purchased his vehicle only on 17.02.2012 and a temporary registration certificate was also issued on the same day concerning his vehicle. He also submitted that after the purchase the vehicle of the complainant was insured with the appellant-Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. covering a period from 17.02.2012 to 16.02.2013. He also submitted that within a period of 12 days from the date of purchase i.e. on 01.03.2012 the complainant with his vehicle was returning from Agartala to his house at Kanchanpur, but due to night he halted at Dhanicherra,Machmara to his father-in-law’s house keeping his vehicle on the lawn of that house, but after about 15 minutes, it was found that the said vehicle caught fire and as a result, the entire inside portion of the vehicle has been burnt fully which has been established from the reports of the Officer-In-charge, Pecharthal Police Station and also of the Divisional Fire Officer of Unakoti. He also submitted that the Offer of Permit allows an owner of a vehicle to get his vehicle regularly registered within 180 days and also to obtain a valid Route Permit in regular form to ply his vehicle on the road within that period. He also submitted that the fire accident took place on 01.03.2012 i.e. long before the expiry of the period of 180 days. He also submitted that the complainant did not get time to obtain regular Route Permit and also to get his vehicle registered within this short span of time from the date of purchase of the vehicle.
13. The learned counsel for the respondent-complainant also submitted that as the Offer of Permit allows the owner of a vehicle to use the same at least for a period of 180 days and also as the Offer of Permit is normally treated as a temporary Route Permit for the period of 180 days from the date of issuance of the same, the repudiation of the claim of the complainant on the ground of absence of valid Route Permit by the appellant-Insurance Company cannot be sustained in the eye of law. He also submitted that the Assistant State Public Information Officer has been examined before the District Forum whose deposition has established the genuineness of the Offer of Permit issued by the Motor Vehicle Department and as such, there is no scope to say that the said offer of permit is not valid and is a fake document.   
14. The learned counsel for the respondent-complainant also submitted as regards the non-production of the tax token that it is not the duty of the Insurance Company to see whether the complainant being the owner of the vehicle paid the tax to the government or not. He also submitted that the payment of tax for the vehicle is in no way concerned with the insurance policy and the claim of the complainant under that policy. He also submitted that it is the duty of the Taxing officer under the M.V.Act to deal with the matter as to whether the complainant actually paid the tax amount for the relevant period to the government or not. He also submitted that however, it is the case of the complainant that the tax token and some other documents were inside the vehicle at the relevant time and said documents were totally burnt when the entire inner portion of his vehicle has been totally burnt by fire. He also submitted that the absence of tax token does not stand as a bar to the complainant to get his claim satisfied according to law by the appellant-Insurance Company.
15. The learned counsel for the respondent also submitted that when it is the settled principle of law that the Offer of Permit remains valid for a period of 180 days from the date of issuance thereof, and when that period of 180 days was not over within which the fire accident took place in the vehicle of the complainant, the repudiation of the claim of the complainant by the appellant Insurance Company is not sustainable in law.
16. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the two decisions of which in one decision the principle of law enunciated in AIR 2012 Supreme Court 184 is not applicable in the instant case as the facts and circumstances of the referred case are not similar to the facts and circumstances of the present case. He also submitted that the principle of law enunciated in the decision reported in AIR 2013 Calcutta 123 is also not helpful to the Insurance Company. He also submitted that the Ld. District Forum meticulously and elaborately discussed all the matters involved in this case and ultimately arrived at the right conclusion and accordingly, passed the impugned judgment allowing the complaint and therefore, the impugned judgment being proper and justified should be affirmed and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.   
17. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, the evidences both oral and documentary, the impugned judgment and the memo of appeal and found that there are certain admitted facts in the case. Admittedly, the respondent-complainant Paritosh Rudrapal purchased his commercial vehicle (MAXIMO MINI VAN BS-3) containing Chassis No.MAIFB2MCRC6A36414 and Engine No.MCB6M33053 on taking a loan from Tripura Other Backward Classes Co-operative Development Corporation Ltd.(O.P.-respondent No.2) on 17.02.2012. It is also admitted fact that the said vehicle bore temporary registration No.TR-01-J-7998 which was issued on 17.02.2012 and was valid till 12.03.2012. It is also admitted fact that the vehicle of the complainant was within the coverage of insurance policy issued by the appellant-O.P. No.1 (Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd.) covering a period from 17.02.2012 to 16.02.2013. It is also found admitted position that an Offer of Permit for plying the vehicle of the complainant was issued on 25.02.2012 by the office of the Joint Transport Commissioner, Government of Tripura on the basis of an application of the complainant dated 17.02.2012 submitted for a new route permit for the road from Dasda to Kumarghat via Kanchanpur.   
18. It is also admitted fact that on 01.03.2012 the vehicle of the complainant caught fire from the heat of the engine while it was kept in stationary condition by the complainant in the lawn of the house of his father-in-law at Dhanicherra, Machmara. It is also admitted fact that on account of that fire accident, inner side of the said vehicle was fully burnt by fire which has been corroborated by the report of the Officer-In-charge of Pecharthal Police Station and of the report of the Divisional Fire officer, Unakoti. It is also admitted fact that on getting the information regarding the said fire accident and also on receipt of the claim application from the complainant, the appellant, Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. appointed a surveyor Sri Sankar Roy to inspect and assess the quantum of damage so caused to the vehicle of the complainant by the fire accident. He also submitted that the surveyor calculated the quantum of damages by following two methods, one of which was repairing basis for an amount of Rs.1,89,712/- and other was Cash-Loss basis for an amount of Rs.1,23,044/-. It is also admitted fact that the appellant asked the complainant to adopt one of the two methods to which the complainant by submitting an application replied in favour of adopting the calculation of Cash-Loss basis.
19. It is also found admitted position that when the Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. was ready to settle the claim of the complainant following the reply of the complainant, the insurance company received a verification report from the Investigator Debabrata Saha who obtained the same from State Public Information Officer of the Transport Department under the RTI Act on 31.01.2013 to the effect that as per their data base, no permit has been issued against the said vehicle and on the basis of that report/information, the Insurance Company came to the conclusion that the said vehicle of the complainant had no valid Route Permit for plying on the road and therefore, repudiated the claim of the complainant.
20. According to the appellant-Insurance Company, the complainant got his vehicle plied on the road without any valid Route Permit and thereby the complainant, not only violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, but also violated the provision of law embodied in Section 66(1) of the M.V.Act, 1988. It transpires that the appellant-Insurance Company repudiated the claim of the complainant simply on the plea that the complainant had no valid Route Permit at the relevant time.
21. Admittedly, the complainant at the relevant time had no valid Route Permit to ply his vehicle on the road. But the facts remains that the Transport Department of the Government of Tripura granted Offer of Permit while the complainant made an application for granting a new Route Permit on 17.02.2012. It transpires that the Offer of Permit was granted on 25.02.2012. It is also the case of the Insurance Company that the Offer of Permit was invalid and a fake document. In this regard, we find that the O.P.-respondent No.3 examined one Bijoy Debbarma, Chief Motor Vehicle Inspector-cum-Asstt. State Public Information Officer, Transport department, Agartala as OPW1 who stated in his cross-examination that on the date of accident, the vehicle concerned was having offer of permit. He also stated in his deposition that the offer of permit is issued prior to purchase of vehicle and a regular permit is issued after the vehicle is purchased and registered. This witness further stated that the validity of the Offer of Permit is for 180 days from the date of issue.
22. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submitted that there is nothing to show that the Offer of Permit (Ext-4) so granted by the office of the Joint Transport Commissioner, Agartala for plying his vehicle on the road was accepted by the complainant. In this regard, we are of the view that when an Offer of Permit is issued in favour of the owner of a vehicle, it is not at all necessary on the part of the owner of that vehicle to inform the Transport Department that the owner of the said vehicle has accepted the Offer of Permit so granted by the department by making an application accordingly. In the instant case, we find that the complainant got his vehicle plied on the relevant date on the basis of the Offer of Permit so granted by the office of the Joint Transport Commissioner. This indicates that the complainant as the owner of the vehicle accepted that Offer of Permit, otherwise he would not get his vehicle plied on the road on that date. So, we find no force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company in this regard.
23. In the case reported in AIR 2012 Supreme Court 184, we find that in the said reported case there was a question of temporary inter-state stage carriage permit granted without concurrence of other state and it has been held that the permit was not valid one. However, we find that the facts and circumstances of the present case is altogether different from the facts and circumstances of the referred case and as such, the principle of law enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above cited case is not applicable in the instant case.
24. From the other reported case being AIR 2013 Calcutta 123, we find that the offer letter was issued by the State Transport Authority (STA) in discharge of its statutory obligation and in that case there was also nothing to show that within statutory life of the Offer of Permit any decision was taken by STA to issue the permit. However, from the above cited decision, it is clear that the validity of the offer of permit granted by the Transport Authority is for a period of six months i.e. for 180 days from the date of issue of the same. It is not expected that if the Transport Authority issued a Route Permit in favour of the owner of the vehicle after five months of purchase of that vehicle, the owner of the said vehicle would keep his vehicle in idle condition for the said five months. Rather it is found appropriate that if the Offer of Permit is granted in favour of the owner of a vehicle when applied for grant of a new Route Permit, the owner will use his vehicle by way of plying on the road on the basis of the said Offer of Permit at least for a period of 180 days from the date of issue thereof i.e. during the life time of the said offer of permit and in this regard, the Offer of Permit is practically treated as a temporary Route Permit. Be that as it may, the decision reported in AIR 2013 Calcutta 123 is also not applicable in the instant case being the facts and circumstances of the referred case are altogether different from the facts and circumstances of the instant case. Therefore, we are of the view that the complainant by way plying his vehicle on the road on the basis of the Offer of Permit so granted by the Transport Department did not violate any terms and conditions of the Insurance policy and also the provision of law embodied in Section 66(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 as pleaded by the appellant.
25. In the instant case, we find that the complainant on the basis of the said Offer of Permit got his vehicle plied on the road on the relevant date i.e. 01.03.2012 on which the fire accident took place. It is now the settled principle of law that the owner of the vehicle on the basis of Offer of Permit can ply his vehicle at least for 180 days from the date of issue of the same. But the law requires that the owner of the vehicle must get his vehicle registered before the expiry of the date of temporary registration period and also must obtain the required regular Route Permit from the Transport department within 180 days. In the instant case, the fire accident took place only after 11 days of purchase of the vehicle by the complainant. So, it is found that the said fire accident took place within the validity period of temporary registration and also within the period of validity of the Offer of Permit. Therefore, we are of the view that the appellant-Insurance Company had no valid ground to repudiate the claim of the complainant. Furthermore, from the facts and circumstances of the case, we are also of the view that the Offer of Permit is not an invalid and fake document. As regards the non-availability of any information in the software maintained by the Transport Department, the presumption drawn by the District Forum is found acceptable. Ld. District Forum rightly held that it is the Transport Department which is to be blamed for not getting the information of issue of Offer of Permit entered in the software of the department, but for that the complainant cannot be held responsible.  That being the position, we are of the view that the appellant-Insurance Company was not proper and justified in repudiating the claim of the complainant and thus, the appellant-Insurance Company is found negligent and deficient in providing service to the complainant by way of not satisfying the claim of the complainant on Cash-Loss basis as opted by the complainant.
26. From the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the repudiation of the claim of the complainant without any just cause has compelled the complainant to lodge the complaint before the Ld. District Forum. So, it is found that for the act of the appellant, the complainant had to suffer mental agony and harassment unnecessarily and for this the complainant is entitled to be compensated.
27. We have gone through the impugned judgment and found that the Ld. District Forum elaborately and meticulously considered the evidences and the facts and circumstances of the case and rightly arrived at the conclusion and accordingly, passed the impugned judgment awarding compensation which, according to us, calls for no interference by this Commission. We are, therefore, of the view that in the instant appeal practically there is no merit and as the impugned judgment calls for no interference, it is liable to be affirmed and the appeal is also liable to be dismissed with cost.             
28. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with cost. The impugned judgment passed by the Ld. District Forum, West Tripura, Agartala on 01.12.2014 in case No.C.C.03/2014 is hereby affirmed.
29. The appellant-O.P. is directed to deposit a cost of Rs.5,000/- in the Legal Aid Account of this Commission within one month from the date of judgment, failing which this amount will carry interest @ 9% p.a. till the payment is made.

 

                    MEMBER                                             PRESIDENT

                            State Commission                                    State Commission

                                    Tripura                                                      Tripura