UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD vs VEERBHAN JAT

K. S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member

[1] This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 25.9.2013 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (in short, ''the State Commission'') in Appeal No. 668/2013 & 643/2013 - United India Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Veer Bhan Jat by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was upheld.

[2] Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent owner of vehicle No. RJ 32 FA 4174 obtained insurance policy from OP/petitioner for a sum of Rs.17,45,000/- for a period of one year from 26.3.2008 to 25.3.2009. On 28.5.2008, complainant''s driver was driving vehicle loaded with maize from Chittorgarh to Safido Mandi, Haryana and in the mid-night, 20-25 people armed with weapons stopped the vehicle, snatched Rs.23,000/-, sprayed petrol on the vehicle and put it on fire on account of which, horse of the truck was totally burnt and all the documents kept in the truck also burnt. Intimation was given to the Police. Fire-brigade controlled fire. Intimation was given to OP and documents were made available to OP. OP repudiated claim on the ground that there was no valid and effective permit on the date of accident whereas all documents along with permit were available with the complainant which burnt with the vehicle. It was further submitted that terms and conditions of policy were not supplied to the complainant. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that surveyor assessed loss of vehicle on total loss basis for Rs.13,06,201/- and after deducting wreck value of Rs.4,50,000/-, assessed loss of Rs.8,54,701/-. It was further submitted that on the date of accident i.e. 28.5.2008 there was no valid permit for driving vehicle and claim was rightly repudiated and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties, allowed complaint partly and directed OP to pay 75% of the amount i.e. 13,08,750/- with 9% p.a. interest and also directed to pay Rs.8,000/- for mental agony and Rs.3,000/- as cost of litigation. Both the parties preferred appeals before State Commission and learned State Commission vide impugned order dismissed both the appeals against which, this revision petition has been filed.

[3] Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused record.

[4] Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as vehicle was driven without permit, claim was rightly repudiated; even then, learned District Forum committed error in allowing complaint and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that complainant was possessing valid permit, but it burnt with the truck and order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed.

[5] The core question to be decided in this case is whether complainant was possessing valid permit on the date of accident and if not so; whether any claim was payable on non-standard basis.

[6] As far valid permit is concerned, learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention towards permit issued on 30.5.2008 by RTO, Jaipur which was valid upto 29.5.2013. Admittedly, accident occurred in intervening night of 28-29/5/2008 and in such circumstances, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that complainant did not possess any valid permit at the time of incident. Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that permit was destroyed in fire, but he has not produced any duplicate copy of the permit by which it could have been ascertained that complainant was possessing valid permit on the date of accident. Learned Counsel for the respondent was given opportunity to produce certified copy of the permit, but he expressed inability to produce it on record and in such circumstances, it can very well be held that on the date of incident, complainant was not possessing any valid permit. District Forum also allowed 75% of the claim on the ground that complainant was not possessing permit and learned State Commission also dismissed appeal of complainant for enhancement of compensation. In such circumstances, it becomes clear that complainant was not possessing valid permit on the date of accident.

[7] Learned District Forum allowed claim on non-standard basis. Learned Counsel for the respondent placed reliance on judgment of this Commission in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Jaswant Singh,2013 CPJ 389 in which claim was allowed inspite of the fact that vehicle had no valid permit for plying. He also placed reliance on judgment of Hon''ble Apex Court in Amalendu Sahoo Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 2010 2 CPJ 9 in which claim was allowed on non-standard basis as vehicle was driven on hire, though, registered as private vehicle. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on judgment of this Commission in R.P. No. 1911 of 2011 Pal Singh Vs. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. in which order of District Forum dismissing complaint for want of valid route permit was upheld. Hon''ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Lgtd. Vs. Challa Bharathamma & Ors., 2004 8 SCC 517 observed that a person without permit to ply a vehicle canot be placed at a better pedestal vis- -vis one who has a permit, but has violated any condition thereof. Plying of a vehicle without a permit is an infraction. In R.P. No 917 of 2014 National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Toofani Hati it was observed by me that Insurance Company has not committed any error in repudiating claim when vehicle was plying without permit on the date of accident. Hon''ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 8463 of 2014 Narinder Singh Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. after considering Amalendu Sahoo''s case held that as vehicle was without any registration on the date of alleged accident, it amounted to fundamental breach of terms and conditions of policy and order dismissing claim by Fora below was upheld. As per provisions of Motor Vehicle Act, the vehicle cannot ply on the road without permit and in the case in hand as vehicle was plying without permit which amounted to violation of fundamental terms and conditions of policy. OP has not committed any error in repudiating claim and learned District Forum committed error in allowing complaint and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal and revision petition is to be allowed.

[8] Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and order dated 25.9.2013 passed by the learned State Commission in Appeal No. 668/2013 & 643/2013 - United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Veer Bhan Jat and order of District Forum dated 15.5.2013 in Complaint No.759 of 2009 - Veer Bhan Jat Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. is set aside and complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs.