ACHAMBHIT PRASAD GUPTA vs ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS.

This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 7.4.2015 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pandri, Raipur (in short, ''the State Commission'') in Complt. No.13/2014 - Achambhit Prasad Gupta Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & 3 Ors. by which, complaint was dismissed.

Brief facts of the case are that Complainant/appellant is a retired employee of South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. After retirement, the complainant started transport business for livelihood of his family and for self-employment, investing his hard earned money received from South Eastern Coal Field Ltd as his retiral benefits. The complainant purchased one Hiwa Tata Truck from Shivam Motors (Dealers of Tata Motors) on 20.12.2013 at the cost of Rs.24,85,000/-. The said vehicle was insured with O.P.No.1 to 3/Respondent No. 1 to 3 and premium of Rs.49,138/- was paid. The said vehicle was parked in the garage; driver Shri Chandra Shekhar sitting in the driving seat started the engine and also lifted the load body. The driver did not notice that high tension power line was passing through above the said vehicle; as soon as the load body came into contact with high tension wire, the vehicle got electrocuted and got burnt completely. Intimation in this regard was sent by the complainant to the Branch office, Ambikapur of the Insurance Company and also to O.P.No.4. The O.P.No.1 to 3 appointed Shri A.P. Singh, Surveyor to conduct preliminary survey. Shri A.P. Singh, Surveyor conducted preliminary survey. Thereafter the complainant submitted claim along with all relevant documents before the O.P. No.1 to 3. On being receipts of the documents, the O.P.No.1 to 3 appointed Shri R.B. Singh as Surveyor, who also inspected the vehicle and assessed the loss and submitted his report. Shri R.B. Singh, Surveyor after adjusting salvage value of Rs.3,00,000/- and excess clause of Rs.1,500 as per the terms and conditions of the policy, assessed the actual loss as Rs.20,65,500/- which is payable by O.P.No.1 to 3 to the complainant, but the O.P.No.1 to 3 did not pay the said amount to the complainant and repudiated the claim of the complainant. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before State Commission.

OP No. 1 to 3 resisted complaint and submitted that the vehicle in question was not registered with the concerned R.T.O., which is violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The vehicle in question was being used for commercial purpose, therefore, fitness and permit was required, but no fitness and permit was obtained by the complainant. The complainant violated terms and conditions of the insurance policy as well as mandatory provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The vehicle in question was being used in the public place without obtaining permit and fitness, which is fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Therefore, the O.P.No.1 to 3 has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant. The complainant is not a consumer. He purchased three Hiwa trucks which were engaged with a contractor for transporting mine''s material. Denying any deficiency on their part, prayed for dismissal of complaint. None appeared for OP No. 4.

Learned State Commission after hearing both the parties dismissed complaint against which, this appeal has been filed.

Heard learned Counsel for the appellant for admission purposes and perused record.

Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that as vehicle was having temporary registration and was not being used on public road, there was no question of violation of terms and conditions of policy as well M.V. Act and learned State Commission committed error in dismissing complaint; hence, appeal be admitted.

It is not disputed that complainant''s vehicle which was insured by OP was damaged due to electrocution. Complainant in para 7 of the complaint mentioned that vehicle was parked in the garage and driver Mr. Chandra Shekhar sitting on the driving seat started engine and also lifted the load body. The driver did not notice that high tension power line was passing through above stated vehicle and as soon the load body came to contact with high tension power line, the vehicle got electrocuted and burnt completely. On the other hand, surveyor inspected vehicle on the spot which was about 30 k.m. away from residence of complainant. Admittedly, complainant does not possess registration certificate, fitness certificate and permit at the time of incident and it appears that complainant was running vehicle on public road without requisite documents and thus violated terms and conditions of policy as well provisions of M.V. Act. Allegations in para 7 of the complaint that vehicle was parked in garage and at that place while lifting load body it came into contact with high tension line is totally false allegation because had vehicle been parked in garage how it was electrocuted at distance of 30 k.m. from complainant''s residence? Complainant has not come with clean hands and has purposely suppressed the fact that vehicle was at long distance from his residence and to claim benefit of insurance coverage pleaded that vehicle was parked in the garage which is contrary to the record. Learned State Commission after elaborate discussion, rightly dismissed complaint for violation of terms and conditions of policy as well provisions of M.V. Act in not obtaining requisite documents namely; registration certificate, permit and fitness certificate when vehicle was on public way at a distance of 30 k.m. from complainant''s residence after 2½ months of purchase of vehicle

I do not find any illegality in the impugned order and appeal is liable to be dismissed in limine.

Consequently, appeal filed by appellant is dismissed at admission stage in limine.