NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD Vs. CHOTELAL MEHTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE relevant facts for disposal of this appeal arc that the complainant/ respondent is the owner of the vehicle No. 47 -1640 p. which was insured with the appellant National Insurance Co. for the period of 18.5.2001 to 17.5.2002. Unfortunately the Complainant sustained injury. The vehicle was also got damaged. Accordingly, the appellant was informed. As per the direction of the appellant, National Insurance Co. the vehicle was repaired at the cost of Rs. 69,700/ -. Ultimately, the appellant Insurance Co. repudiated the insurance claim on the ground of non - submission of road permit.

(2.) IN the instant case, insurance of the vehicle as well as accident causing injury and damage to the vehicle has been admitted. However, the claim has been repudiated on the ground that the insured vehicle had no valid road permit at the relevant time of accident. Mr. Alok Lal learned counsel for the appellant as usual has vehementally challenged the order of the Court below and submits that the appellant is justified in repudiating the claim of the insurer on the ground of non - availability of the road permit and in support of his contention, has relied on a decision in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Challa Bharthanque and others, reported in 2005 (1) JCR 41, wherein it has been held that plying of vehicle without road permit is contravention of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. The other unreported decision of this commission relied upon by Mr. Alok Lal disposed of on 27.3.2003, wherein, it has been held that the vehicle insured as a private vehicle found to be used as passenger vehicle, amounts to contravention of the terms, and conditions of the policy and as such, the insurer is not liable to compensate the insured in case of damage or loss of the insured vehicle. The principle laid down in the case of National Insurance Co. (supra) will not be applicable in the proceeding before the Consumer Protection fora in as, much as, that relates to the damage claim by the owner of the vehicle under Motor Vehicles Act. In case in hand, admittedly, the vehicle was insured with the appellant which met with accident that caused substantial the complainant and, as such, he is entitled to the amount covered under the Insurance Policy. The grant of road permit and/or non -availability of road permit is between the owner of the vehicle and the State. The State can take appropriate action under the Motor Vehicles Act against the owner of the vehicle in case the vehicle is plying without road permit. Thus the complainant is a consumer within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act and in terms of the policy he is entitled to be compensated by the insurer. Non -availability of the road permit will not come in the way of consumer to get his insured amount in terms of the policy. That apart the policy does not specifically envisage carrying of road permit alongwith the vehicle. In our view repudiation of the claim of the complainant/respondent is unjustified and accordingly it is held that the Court below has rightly passed the impugned order. We are not inclined to interfere with the order impugned. In the result, the appeal is dismissed but in the facts and circumstances there shall be no order as to cost.