Achambhit Prasad Gupta v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

First Appeal No. 356 of 2015

Disposition

dismissed

Attorney(S)

Mr. R.K Bhawnani

Judges

K.S Chaudhari, Presiding Member

Acts

MOTOR VEHICLES ACT 1988

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The appellant, Achambhit Prasad Gupta, a retired employee of South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd., purchased a Hiwa Tata Truck on 20.12.2013 for Rs. 24,85,000/-, which was insured by the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. The vehicle was involved in an incident where the load body came into contact with a high tension power line, resulting in the vehicle being electrocuted and burnt completely. The appellant submitted a claim to the insurance company, which was repudiated on grounds of violation of policy terms and conditions, specifically the absence of registration, fitness certificate, and permit for commercial use of the vehicle. The appellant filed a complaint before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which dismissed the complaint. The appellant then filed the present appeal against the dismissal order dated 07/04/2015.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the repudiation of the insurance claim by the respondents was justified due to the appellant's alleged violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Whether the appellant was entitled to insurance coverage despite the vehicle lacking registration, fitness certificate, and permit at the time of the incident.
Whether the appellant's claim that the vehicle was parked in a garage at the time of the incident was credible in light of evidence suggesting the vehicle was on a public road approximately 30 kilometers from the appellant's residence.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

The vehicle had temporary registration and was not being used on a public road at the time of the incident.
There was no violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy or the Motor Vehicles Act.
The State Commission erred in dismissing the complaint and the appeal should be admitted.

Respondents' Arguments

The vehicle was not registered with the concerned R.T.O., violating terms of the insurance policy.
The vehicle was used for commercial purposes without obtaining mandatory fitness and permit certificates, breaching the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
The vehicle was operated on a public road without requisite documents, constituting a fundamental breach of the insurance policy, justifying repudiation of the claim.
The complainant was not a consumer in the context of the insurance contract and the complaint should be dismissed.
No appearance or defense was presented by the fourth respondent.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court examined the facts and found it undisputed that the vehicle was damaged due to electrocution. However, the appellant's claim that the vehicle was parked in a garage at the time was contradicted by the evidence indicating the vehicle was about 30 kilometers away from the appellant's residence, being operated on a public road. The appellant lacked essential documents such as registration certificate, fitness certificate, and permit, which are mandatory under the Motor Vehicles Act for commercial vehicles. This constituted a violation of the insurance policy terms and statutory provisions. The Court observed that the appellant had suppressed material facts and did not come with clean hands. The State Commission’s dismissal of the complaint was based on these grounds and was found to be legally sound. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed at the admission stage without detailed examination.

Holding and Implications

The Court’s final decision was DISMISSED AT THE ADMISSION STAGE.

The effect of this decision is that the appellant's complaint against the repudiation of the insurance claim remains dismissed, upholding the State Commission’s order. No new legal precedent was established, and the ruling primarily reinforces the necessity of compliance with policy terms and statutory requirements for insurance claims.

Show full summary ...

To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

Achambhit Prasad Gupta v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

NEW DELHI

FIRST APPEAL NO. 356 OF 2015

(Against the Order dated 07/04/2015 in Complaint No. 13/2014 of the State Commission Chhattisgarh)

1. ACHAMBHIT PRASAD GUPTA

S/O. VINDHYACHAL GUPTA, BHTAGAON, SURAJPUR, DISTRICT-SURAJPUR

CHHATTISGARH ...........Appellant(s) Versus

1. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & 3 ORS.

THROUGH : CHIEF REGIONAL MANAGER, REGIONAL

OFFICE, 1ST FLOOR, R.K. PLAZA, RING ROAD-1,

PACHPEDI NAKA,

RAIPUR (CHHATTISGARH)

2. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,

THROUGH : DIVISIONAL MANAGER, RAMA TRADE

CENTRE, 1ST FLOOR, NEAR BUS STAND,

BILASPUR

CHHATTISGARH

3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,

THROUGH : DIVISIONAL MANAGER, 3RD FLOOR,

TECHNOPOLIS, 1-10-44, CHIKOTI GARDENS, HYDERABAD-500016

ANDHRA PRADESH

4. M/S. TATA MOTORS INSURANCE BROKERS &

ADVISORY SERVICES LIMITED,

C/O. SHIVAM MOTORS, BILASPUR, CHHATTISGARH ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI,PRESIDING MEMBER For the Appellant : MR. R.K. BHAWNANI For the Respondent :

Dated : 20 Jan 2017

ORDER

PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER

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.

2. 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.

3 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.

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

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

6. 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.

7. 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

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

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

......................J

K.S. CHAUDHARI

PRESIDING MEMBER

Achambhit Prasad Gupta v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

Respondents' Arguments

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Achambhit Prasad Gupta v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

Comments