New India Assurance Co Ltd vs RAMAWATAR SHARMA

THE above mentioned two appeals are being decided by this common judgment as both have been preferred against order dated 25. 4. 2007 passed by the District Forum, Jhunjhunu is Complaint No. 113/2005 by which the complaint of complainant respondent No. 1 was allowed against the appellant Insurance Company in the manner that the Insurance Company was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,12,225 within one month and if the amount was not paid within one month the Insurance Company would get interest @ 9% p. a. on the above amount.

IT arises in the following circumstances: that the complainant respondent No. 1 in Appeal No. 904/2007 had filed a complaint before the District Forum on 27. 4. 2005 inter alia stating that his jeep bearing No. RJ 18 T 829 was got insured with the appellant Insurance Company for the period 2. 12. 2004 to 1. 12. 2005 for a sum of Rs. 3,32,405. It was further stated that on 11. 1. 2005 when the jeep was coming from Jaipur and when it had reached near the bus stand Jhadaya in night at about 10. 00-11. 00 p. m. a Neel Gai suddenly came before the jeep as a result of which the jeep in question had capsized and had fallen in a dig and jeep was damaged and information of that incident was given by the complainant to the office of the Insurance Company and spot survey was got conducted by the Insurance Company and as per the case of the complainant a sum of Rs. 1,71,469 were spent in making repair of the jeep and for that claim was preferred by the complainant before the office of the Insurance Company but that claim was repudiated by the Insurance Company through letter dated 7. 3. 2005 on the ground that at the time of accident three persons were sitting in the jeep and the jeep was not having a permit to ply over the road as the permit in question had come into force w. e. f. 12. 1. 2005 though the accident had taken place on 11. 1. 2005 and further the fitness certificate was also valid for the period 12. 1. 2005 to 11. 1. 2007 and not on the date of accident. Thereafter the present complaint was filed. A reply was filed by the Insurance Company before the District Forum on 19. 9. 2006 in which they have taken the same pleas which were taken by them in the repudiation letter dated 7. 3. 2005 and it was prayed that complaint be dismissed. After hearing the parties, the District Forum, Jhunjhunu through impugned order dated 25. 4. 2007 had allowed the complaint inter alia holding: (i) That so far as the case of the appellant Insurance Company that there was no valid permit on 11. 1. 2005 when the accident had taken place was concerned, the District Forum had observed that no doubt the permit in question was valid w. e. f. 12. 1. 2005 but the complainant had applied for issuance of the permit prior to that and thus there was no breach of the condition of the policy on the part of complainant respondent.

(ii) That so far as the fact that unauthorised persons were carried in the jeep was concerned, that was not found proved and the vehicle of the complainant was got registered from 11. 1. 2005 and the amount as assessed by the Surveyor was ordered to be paid by the Insurance Company to the complainant. Aggrieved from the said order of the District Forum the complainant as well as the Insurance Company have preferred the appeal.

The main contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant Insurance Company is that since on the date of accident i. e. , 11. 1. 2005 there was no valid permit and thus it was violation of provisions of Section 66 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, therefore, in such case at the most the claim must have been treated as sub-standard claim, thus, the findings recorded by the District Forum are erroneous one and should be quashed and set aside and to that extent the appeal filed by the Insurance Company be allowed.

On the other hand the learned Counsel for the complainant has raised two submissions: (i) That so far as the case of permit is concerned, no doubt it was issued by the authority w. e. f. 12. 1. 2005 but the amount for issuance of the permit was paid by the complainant in the office of the Transport Deptt. on 20. 12. 2004 and thus if there was a delay in issuing the permit, for that complainant could not be held responsible and since the vehicle was got registered on 12. 1. 2005 and similarly the fitness certificate was issued on 12. 1. 2005 but the payment for that was paid earlier, therefore, there was no violation of terms of the policy on that point also.

(ii) That the District Forum had wrongly stated that the amount of Rs. 1,12,225 was assessed by the Surveyor as the Surveyor Sunil Yadav in his report dated 15. 2. 2005 had assessed the net liability of Rs. 1,61,315. 57 and the expected salvage value of Rs. 28,000 and, therefore, passing the decree for a sum of Rs. 1,12,225 was not justified and the findings of the District Forum be quashed and set aside and the appeal bearing No. 895/2007 filed by the complainant be allowed.

WE have heard the learned Counsel for the Insurance Company as well as for the complainant and gone through the entire materials available on record. There is no dispute on the point that the vehicle in question was insured with the appellant Insurance Company for the period 2. 12. 2004 to 1. 12. 2005.

THERE is also no dispute on the point that the accident had taken place on 11. 1. 2005 when a Neel Gai came suddenly before the jeep and the jeep had capsized and fallen in the dig and was got damaged. There is no dispute on the point that the claim of the complainant was repudiated by the Insurance Company on 7. 3. 2005 on two grounds namely of permit and fitness certificate. On the file there is a survey report of Sunil Yadav which reveals that the amount as assessed by the Surveyor was for Rs. 1,61,315. 57 and not as mentioned by the District Forum in the impugned order and further a sum of Rs. 28,000 were found as expected salvage value and thus net loss recommended by the Surveyor was Rs. 1,61,315. 57.

FROM the receipt dated 20. 12. 2004 which was issued by the Transport Deptt. it is very much clear that a sum of Rs. 4,010 were paid by the complainant for issuance of the fitness certificate and as well as permit etc. and there is also no dispute on the point that the permit which was issued by the Transport Deptt. was valid for the period 12. 1. 2005 to 11. 1. 2010 and similarly the fitness certificate was valid upto 11. 1. 2007 and the same was issued on 12. 1. 2005.

IN our considered opinion when the necessary charges were paid by the complainant to the office of the Transport Deptt. on 20. 12. 2004 and if the fitness certificate as well as permit were issued later on, for that complainant could not be held guilty as insured could not be treated at fault and guilty of breach of the conditions. Therefore, the argument of the learned Counsel for the Insurance Company that the claim be treated as non-standard is rejected. When the Surveyor had assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 1,61,315. 57, awarding of Rs. 1,12,225 by the District Forum could not be justified. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,61,315. 57 minus Rs. 28,000 the amount of salvage in place of Rs. 1,12,225 as awarded by the District Forum and to that extent the complaint of the complainant deserves to be allowed.

For the reasons, so far as the Appeal No. 904/2007 filed by the Insurance Company is concerned the same is dismissed but the Appeal No. 895/2007 filed by the complainant is partly allowed in the manner that the Insurance Company would pay a sum of Rs. 1,33,315. 57 in place of Rs. 1,12,225 along with interest @ 9% p. a. from the date of filing of the complaint till the payment is made and to that extent the impugned order dated 25. 4. 2007 passed by the District Forum, Jhunjhunu stands modified. Ordered accordingly.