AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THIS is an appeal preferred by the complainant in C.D. No. 89/93 on the file of the West Godavari District Forum aggrieved by the relief granted in his favour. He contends that he ought to have been granted by the District Forum the relief sought by him in his complaint. The respondent in the appeal is the opposite party in the CD. He had not preferred any appeal questioning the order of the District Forum. Therefore the finding of the District Forum that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company i.e., The New India Assurance Company Limited, remains un-challenged and had become final.
AT the relevant time the complainant was the owner of a motor vehicle (bus) bearing No. AP-37/T-5724. He had insured the said vehicle under a policy on 27.3.1991 for a period from 28.3.1991 to 27.3.1992. That was admitted by the respondent in its version filed before the District Forum. According to the complainant under Ex. A-l letter dated 31.8.1991 he informed the respondent that his vehicle was being given for repair on 1.9.1991 and would be under stoppage from that day and that he would be informing the respondent after the repairs were over alongwith the stoppage report from the RTO office, and he also requested in that letter that the insurance period should be extended to the extent of the period of stoppage of the vehicle. Copy of that letter was marked as Ex. A-l before the District Forum. That letter was sent under Certificate of Posting marked as Ex. A-2. The respondent disputed the receipt of that letter. After a detailed and thorough consideration of all aspects of the matter the District Forum held that the complainant in fact sent Ex. A-l letter informing the respondent that his bus was stopped for repairs from 31.8.1991 and that he would inform the respondent when his bus was made road- worthy later. Subsequently by letter dated 6.4.1992 (copy marked as Ex. A-3) the complainant informed the respondent that after repairs he was operating the bus from 10.3.1992 and that the period of insurance should be extended from 27.3.1992 to 30.9.1992 as the bus was under stoppage from 1.9.1991 to 9.3.1992 i.e. for a period of six months and nine days. The complainant also submitted the stoppage verification report dated 3.3.1992 (copy marked as Ex. A-6) issued by the concerned Motor Vehicle Inspector and also the order of the Licensing Officer dated 4.5.1992 (copy marked as Ex. A-7) giving tax concession for the period of stoppage from 31.8.1991 to 3.3.1992. The District Forum referred to Regulation 20 relied upon by both sides. It inter alia, provided as follows : "In those cases where a vehicle is laid up in garage and not in use for a period of 2 consecutive months or more, and provided, (i) the vehicle is not undergoing repairs as a result of an event giving rise to a claim under the policy; (ii) previous notice in writing has been given to the Company; (iii) the certificate of insurance has been returned to the Company; and (iv) the period of suspension shall not extend beyond 12 months from the original expiry date of the policy. "A" Policy The liability of the Company may be suspended and in consideration thereof : (a) a prorata return of premium for the period during which the policy is suspended may be credited to the Insured after charging a sum of Rs. 5.00 for this concession; N.B. : The return of premium may only be allowed as a credit to be deducted from the next renewal premium and not as a cash refund. (b) the expiry date of the current period of insurance under the policy may be extended for a period equal to the period the policy is suspended on payment of a sum of Rs. 5.00 for this concession."
The District Forum held that on the facts of the case that regulation was attracted. The complainant also filed Ex. A-8 receipt dated 13.4.1994 evidencing payment of Rs. 5.00 by money order. Instead of granting the relief sought by the complainant, the District Forum directed the respondent to refund half of the premium amount of Rs. 4,390/- collected by it from the complainant. The District Forum gave its reasons for the grant of that relief as follows : "The complainant in this CD. has asked for extension of the period of the policy relating to his bus i.e. by extending the period of insurance policy from 26.3.1992 by 6 months i.e. the period for which the bus of his was laid up. In our considered opinion at this point of time it is not possible to grant the above-said relief as the period of the insurance policy relating to the bus of the complainant came to an end by afflux of time on 26.3.1992. So in view of what is contained in Regulation 20, we are inclined to direct the opposite party to refund half of the premium amount collected by it from the complainant namely Rs. 4,390/- as the bus of the complainant was laid up for 6 months i.e. from 31.8.1991 to 3.3.1992 as evidenced by Exs. A-6 and A- 7 certificates.... Even according to the complainant he started plying his bus from 10.3.1992 and subsequent to 26.3.1992 on which date the period of the policy issued by the opposite party came to an end most probably by taking insurance policy from some other Company or doing the same at his risk."
After carefully considering all aspects of the matter we are of the view that on the facts of the present case the complainant/appellant should be granted the relief sought by him. In this appeal the complainant is not seeking any monetary gain. He is not aggrieved by the rejection by the District Forum of his claim of Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation. He only seeks the relief of extension of the period of insurance to the extent of the period of stoppage of the vehicle i.e. from 1.9.1991 to 3.3.1992 as certified under Exs. A6 and A-7. The reason was that he was plying the vehicle even after 27.3.1992 anticipating the extension of the period of insurance by the respondent under Regulation 20 beyond six months i.e. from 27.3.1992 because his vehicle was under stoppage from 1.9.1991 to 3.3.1992. In Ex. A-3 letter dated 6.4.1992 admittedly received by the respondent, the complainant stated that he informed respondent''s Inspector Sri Ranga Rao by telephone after the vehicle was given for repair on 1.9.1991 and that he sought extension of the period of insurance by meeting the officers of the respondent after the repairs were over and that they informed him that he had insurance cover upto 27.3.1990 and that he could operate the vehicle meanwhile. He also stated in Ex. A-3 letter that he visited the office of the opposite party again on 13.3.1992, 18.3.1992 and on 3.4.1992. In Ex. A-5 letter dated 10.4.1992 addressed by the Assistant Branch Manager at Tanuku to the complainant, these visits made by the complainant were not denied. The complainant approached the West Godavari District Forum on 26.5.1992 and the respondent filed its version dated 4.1.1994 on 7.1.1994. It is not the case of the respondent that the vehicle was involved in any accident after 27.3.1992 or at any time before or within seven months thereafter or that it would be mulcted with any liability by extending the period of insurance as claimed by the complainant. Under the circumstances, we do not see any reason for not granting the relief as sought by the complainant.
IN the result, the appeal is allowed and in the place of the relief granted by the District Forum we direct the respondent to extend the expiry date of the insurance covered under policy No. 31610505/02169 issued by the respondent in respect of the complainant''s vehicle bearing No. AP 37/T-5724 from 27.3.1992 for a period of six months and three days i.e. the period during which the vehicle was under stoppage, i.e. froml.9.1991 to 3.3.1992 (both dates inclusive). The complainant shall also have the costs of Rs. 250/- granted by the District Forum. The appeal is accordingly allowed with costs in this appeal of Rs. 500/-. This order shall be complied with within six weeks from today. Office is directed to communicate this order immediately. Appeal allowed with costs.