National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs P.SATISH KUMAR

THE opposite party National Insurance Company Ltd., against which an award has been passed by the District Forum is the appellant. THE case of the complainant is that he purchased Mahindra and Mahindra van. It was registered on 30.10.1992. It was insured with the opposite party for the period from 13.10.1992 to 12.10.1993. It was to be produced before the Registration Authorities on 2.11.1992 for fitness certificate and after obtaining the same it was to be used as taxi. While soon that day i.e., 2.11.1992 when the vehicle was being taken for Pooja in Melmaruvathur temple, it met with an accident and got damaged. THE vehicle was repaired with a cost of Rs. 50,242.89. A claim was made with the opposite party Insurance Company. THE Insurance Company wanted Permit, Fitness Certificate, Trip Sheet etc. Since the permit had not been obtained at that time and the trip was also a private trip to a temple the question of producing permit and trip sheet did not arise. THE opposite party neither paid the amount nor repudiated the claim. This amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Thus alleging the complaint has been filed.

THE opposite party contended inter-alia that at the time of the accident there was no permit for the vehicle and this violated conditions in the policy and therefore the opposite party was not liable to pay any amount to the complainant. The District Forum on consideration of the evidence accepted the case of the complainant that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. It directed the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 40,243 /- with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of filing of the O.P. i.e., 14.9.1993 till date of payment.

In the arguments now in the appeal it is submitted that the order of the District Forum is against the facts of the case and not sustainable in law. On a careful perusal of the evidence and the relevant law, we find there is much force in this submission. It is common case that the vehicle is a maxi cab and it is a transport vehicle. For this to ply, a permit is required. Under Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, a transport vehicle shall not run without a permit granted or counter signed by a Regional or State Transport Authority excepting under certain conditions stated thereunder. It is not in dispute that taking the vehicle to a temple for Pooja is not one of those conditions. Therefore it is clear that the vehicle was taken to the temple on the day in question by the complainant without a permit. As stated by the District Forum if the vehicle had been used without a permit then it would violate the policy conditions. It may be noted that in the policy under the heading "limitations as to use" it is stated as follows: "Use only for carriage of passengers in accordance with the permit (Contract Carriage or Stage Carriage) issued within the Motor Vehicles, Act, 1988" Then under the heading General Exceptions it is mentioned as follows: "(1) ............. (2) ............... (3) any accident, loss, damage and/or liability caused, sustained or incurred whilst the vehicle is: (a) being used otherwise than in accordance with the Limitations as to use, or, (b) .............."

From the above facts it is manifest that the vehicle at the time of accident has been used without a permit and hence it follows that it has not been used in accordance with the limitations as to use under the policy. For this violation, the complainant cannot claim any amount under the policy. Thus considering we hold that the order of the District Forum cannot be held to be correct.

IN the result, therefore, the appeal is allowed; the order of the District Forum is set aside and the complaint is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.