Bidhi Chand Vs. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. and Another - Court Judgment

Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral):

1. Present appeal is directed against the order dated 26.10.2013, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kinnaur at Reckong Peo, whereby appellants complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which he filed against the respondents, has been dismissed, with the findings that the vehicle, in question, was being used as a goods carrier vehicle, without there being a route permit and also on the ground that there was one unauthorized person on board the vehicle (tractor), when the accident took place.

2. Appellant owned a tractor, which was registered as a light goods vehicle, per registration certificate, copy Annexure-A. The tractor was insured with the respondents, for the period from 24.03.2009 to 23.03.2010, in the sum of Rs.3,49,600/-. On 07.06.2009, tractor met with an accident. Report, copy Annexure-C, was lodged with the Police. At the time of the accident, the tractor was carrying earth, as per Police report. Intimation of the accident was given to the respondents, who deputed a Surveyor. Loss was assessed at Rs.47,607.30 by the Surveyor. Respondents, however, repudiated the claim, vide letter dated 25.03.2009, Annexure-G, on the ground that the person, who was driving the tractor, at the time of the accident, did not possess a valid driving licence. It appears that representation was made by the appellant against the repudiation of his claim and the matter was reconsidered by the respondents. The claim was again repudiated, vide letter dated 06.07.2010, Annexure-H, on the ground that gross weight of the vehicle exceeded 3000 kilograms and, therefore, a route permit was required, but there was no permit, on the date, when accident took place. Appellant felt aggrieved by repudiation of his claim and filed a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. He sought a direction to the respondents to pay insurance claim and also to compensate him for alleged wrongful repudiation of his claim. Litigation expenses were also claimed.

3. Respondents contested the complaint and pleaded that the tractor was registered as a goods carrier, but it was being plied, without obtaining route permit, within the meaning of Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and this amounted to breach of condition of policy, which specifically provided that policy covers use only under a permit, within the meaning of Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Also, it was pleaded by the respondents that against the registered capacity of one person, there were two persons on board the tractor, at the time when the accident took place. Learned District forum, vide impugned order, has dismissed the complaint, accepting the respondents plea.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

5. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that no permit within the meaning of Section 66 (3)(i) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, was required, in respect of the tractor, because its gross weight was less than 3000 kilograms. In support of the plea, learned counsel places reliance upon Section 66(3) (i) of the Motor Vehicles Act, which says that route permit is not required, in respect of a goods carrier, where gross weight does not exceed 3000 kilograms. Registration certificate of the vehicle is available on record as Annexure-A. In the certificate, unladen weight of tractor is recorded as 1840 kilograms. Laden weight is recorded as 1840 kilograms. That means, the weight that was authorized to be carried by the vehicle (in trailer) was equal to the weight of the tractor.

6. Section 66(3)(i) says that permit is not required when the gross weight of a vehicle does not exceed 3000 kilograms. Gross weight is defined to mean total weight of the vehicle and load certified and registered by the Registering Authority as permissible for that vehicle, per Section 2(15) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, in the present case, the gross weight of the vehicle comes to 3680 kilograms, which exceeds 3000 kilograms limit, prescribed under Section 66(3)(i) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Thus, the vehicle could not have been used, without a permit.

7. Next submission made on behalf of the appellant is that route permit had been obtained by paying penalty from retrospective date, i.e. 15.02.2008. Route permit is Annexure-J and the receipt of payment of penalty is Annexure-L. Route permit was obtained on 18.06.2010 or say more than a year, after the occurrence of the accident. Of course, penalty was paid and the route permit that was issued, was effective from 15.02.2008, but that would not enable the appellant to seek insurance claim from the respondents, since on the date of occurrence of the accident, there was no route permit and the condition in the policy says that the vehicle is not to be used at a public place, without there being a permit, required under Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Moreover, this permit was obtained even after the policy had lapsed, because the policy was operative for a period of one year, from 24.03.2009 to 23.03.2010, while the permit was obtained on 18.06.2010.

8. As a result of the above stated position, appeal is dismissed.

9. A copy of this order be sent to each of the parties, free of cost, as per Rules.