PAL SINGH Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The main issue which has arisen for our consideration in this revision petition is as to what the impact is of not holding a valid route permit at the time of the alleged accident on the claim for payment of insured benefits.

(2.) Briefly stated, the petitioner who is original complainant in this case had insured his vehicle, a canter (truck) bearing Regn. No.HR-37-8186 with the respondent for the period from 01.07.2003 to 30.06.2004. This vehicle met with an accident on 25.12.2003. Necessary information was sent to the Insurance Company which appointed the investigator who inspected the vehicle. The petitioner submitted a claim of Rs.80,000/- to the Insurance Company on account of the repairs of the vehicle. This claim was, however, rejected by the respondent vide letter dated 27.02.2006 on the ground that at the time of accident the petitioner was not holding a valid route permit. Challenging the repudiation of his claim, the petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ambala which vide its order dated 29.8.2008 accepted the complaint and granted the following relief:

(3.) Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the District Forum, the OP Insurance Company went in appeal before the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, 'the State Commission'). It was contended on behalf of the Insurance Company that at the time of the alleged accident, the petitioner was not having a valid route permit and violated the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy and, therefore, is not entitled to have any insurable benefits in view of the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of Suraj Mal Ram Niwas Oil Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr., 2011 CTJ 11.