NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. DEV KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COMPLAINANT purchased a Chevrolet Tavera vehicle and got it insured with the petitioner -insurance company for the period from 25 -07 -2012 to 24 -07 -2013 for an IDV of Rs.7,83,589/ -. The vehicle met with an accident on 30 -07 -2012 when it fell into a roadside deep ditch on Haridwar road at Roorkee. Since the vehicle got extensively damaged and had to be retrieved with the help of a crane, the insurance company was informed. A surveyor was appointed to assess the damage. The claim however was repudiated by the insurance company vide its letter dated 07 -01 -2013, on the ground that the vehicle had been purchased under taxi quota and was being used as a transport vehicle without the driver holding a licence to drive a transport vehicle. The District Forum vide its order dated 21 -04 -2014 directed as under:

(2.) BEING aggrieved from the order of the District Forum the insurance company approached the State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal having been dismissed the insurance company is before us by way of this revision petition.

(3.) THE State Commission inter alia noted that no evidence had been produced by the insurance company to prove that the vehicle in question had been registered as a taxi and was obtained under taxi quota. The learned counsel for the petitioner draws my attention to an email dated 22 -11 -2012 sent by raj.kapoor@newindia.co.in to nahar.oic@gmail.com whereby while forwarding the invoice of Dev Kumar received from Padam Motors it was stated that there was excise draw back to the buyer in taxi quota and it is refunded when it applies for the taxi quota permit and gives a copy of that taxi quota permit. There is no indication in the order of the District Forum to show that the aforesaid email was placed before it. In the reply filed before the District Forum there is no reference to this email. Even otherwise, this email by itself does not show that the vehicle in question was obtained under taxi quota. In any case, a finding of fact has been returned by the fora below that the insurance company had failed to prove that the vehicle in question was obtained under taxi quota. In the absence of any material which would prove that the vehicle in question had been obtained under taxi quota, the aforesaid finding recorded by the fora below cannot be said to be perverse so as to warrant interference by this Commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The invoice issued by the seller of the vehicle to the complainant has not been produced nor has the insurance company produced the RC of the vehicle to prove that it was registered as a taxi. The insurance company must have taken copy of the RC whether it be permanent or temporary while issuing the cover note in respect of the vehicle in question. In the absence of any such document, it cannot be said that the vehicle in question was obtained under taxi quota. Section 3 of the Motor Vehicle Act to the extent it is relevant reads as under: