AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This revision is directed against the order of the Chhattishgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur (in short, "the State Commission") dated 23.3.2016 whereby the State Commission accepted the appeal preferred by the respondent/opposite party, set aside the order of the District Forum and dismissed the complaint.
Briefly stated, facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that the petitioner/complainant Ghanshyam Sahu being owner of Bolero vehicle No.CG-04-T-6614 (commercial vehicle) purchased a comprehensive insurance policy from the opposite party insurance company. The policy was valid from 25.3.2013 to 24.3.2014 having IDV of Rs.3,71,220/-. The vehicle unfortunately met with an accident on 22.4.2013 resulting in heavy loss. The intimation of the loss suffered in accident was given to the insurance company. The surveyor was appointed. The insurance company, however, repudiated the claim on the ground that at the relevant time the vehicle was being driven in violation of terms of insurance without permit. Being aggrieved the petitioner raised the consumer dispute by filing a complaint in District Forum, Raipur.
The District Forum on consideration of the pleadings and the evidence partly allowed the complaint and directed the respondent/opposite party to pay to the petitioner a sum of Rs.1,86,180/- alongwith 9% interest thereon w.e.f. 25.4.2014. District Forum also awarded compensation of Rs.10,000/- for mental harassment and Rs.2,000/- was awarded against the cost of proceedings.
The respondent/opposite party being aggrieved of the order of the District Forum approached the State Commission, Chhattishgarh in appeal. Complainant also filed a cross appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation. Both the appeals were disposed of vide impugned order resulting in dismissal of the complaint.
Learned Shri Mohd. Anis-Ur-Rehman, Advocate for the petitioner has contended that the impugned order of the State Commission holding that at the time of accident the subject vehicle was being driven without permit is erroneous for the reason that the State Commission has failed to appreciate that though the vehicle was registered as a commercial vehicle (LMV Taxi) but it was never used as a commercial vehicle, as such no permit was necessary. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to letter dated 30.10.2013 addressed by the complainant to the Manager of the opposite party insurance company as also another letter dated 14.11.2013.
On careful perusal of the record we do not find merit in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner. On perusal of copy of the certificate of insurance-cum-policy the schedule filed on record by the petitioner we do find that this certificate records as under: -
" Limitation as to use:
The policy covers use only under a permit within the meaning of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 or such a carriage falling under Sub-section 3 of Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The policy does not cover use fora) Organised Racing) Pace Making) Reliability Trails) Speed Testing) Use whilst drawing a trailer except the towing (other than for reward) of any one disabled mechanically propelled vehicle."
From the above it is clear that the insurance cover was issued by the opposite party subject to the condition that the subject vehicle shall be used only under a permit within the meaning of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. Admittedly the petitioner had no permit for running the commercial vehicle. Therefore, in our considered view the insurance company was right in repudiating the claim on the ground that the vehicle at the time of accident was being used against the specific term of the policy as to limitations for use without permit. As regards the letters relied upon by the petitioner are concerned those letters are dated 30.3.2013 and 14.11.2013 i.e. after the accident had taken place. Therefore, those letters are in the nature of creating the evidence on an afterthought which are of no avail to the petitioner.
In view of the discussion above, we find no jurisdictional error or material infirmity in the order of the State Commission which may call for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Revision petition is dismissed with no order as to cost.