A. Guhan vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd on 2 April, 2014
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
A. Guhan vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd on 2 April, 2014
BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
CHENNAI
Hon'ble Justice Thiru R. Regupathi PRESIDENT
Thiru J. Jayaram,
JUDICIAL MEMBER
F.A. No. 1069 / 2011 (Against Order in C.C.176/2008, dated 30-09-2011 on the file of the DCDRF,
Chennai [North]) Dated this the 2nd day of APRIL, 2014 A. Guhan, ] S/o. K.R. Appavoo, ] No.69,
West Madha Church Road, ] Royapuram, ] Appellant / Complainant Chennai 600 013 ] Vs United
India Insurance Co. Ltd, ] Represented by its Divisional Manager, ] Divisional Office, ] A.R.
Complex, II Floor, ] 1090, P.H. Road, ] Respondent / Opposite Chennai 600 084 ] Party This appeal
coming before us for final hearing on 17.02.2014 and on hearing the arguments of both sides and
upon perusing the material records, this Commission made the following Order:
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/105123311/
1
A. Guhan vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd on 2 April, 2014
Counsel for Appellant/Complainant:
Ms. N. Premalatha Counsel for Respondent/Opposite Party: Mr. M.B. Gopalan J. JAYARAM,
JUDICIAL MEMBER This appeal is filed by the complainant against the order of the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai [North] in C.C.176/2008, dated 30-09-2011,
dismissing the complaint.
2. The case of the complainant is that his Lorry TN-04 Q-2692 of 2004 model was insured with the
opposite party for the period from 3-3-2006 to 2-3-2007 and with the permit issued by the RTO,
Chennai he was running the vehicle as a goods carrier vehicle with effect from 23-2-2006 to
19-12-2010. He obtained a temporary permit from Andhra Pradesh Transport Department valid
from 30-11-2006 to 6-12-2006; and immediately after expiry of the permit he applied for extension
of permit at Chennai and when the same was under process, the vehicle met with accident on
18-12-2006. Due to the visit of some VIPs, the police officials cleared the vehicle to avoid hindrance
to the traffic. Hence the complainant was forced to take away the vehicle and the police officials
refused to register FIR. He submitted his claim with the opposite party and the claim was
repudiated by the opposite party on the ground that the vehicle was used in violation of Motor
Vehicle Act and the terms of the policy. Repudiation of the complainants legitimate claim amounts
to deficiency in service. Hence the complaint.
3. According to the opposite parties, the vehicle should have been used with a valid permit and on
18-12-2006, which is the date of accident, there was no valid permit. Hence the claim was
repudiated for valid reasons. There is no deficiency in service on their part.
4. The District Forum considered the rival contentions and dismissed the complaint holding that
there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
5. Admittedly, the accident took place on 18-12-2006, and admittedly there was no permit in force
on the date of accident i.e. 18-12-2006. Therefore, it is clear that on the date of accident viz.
18-12-2006 the vehicle was used in contravention of Motor Vehicles Act and also policy conditions.
6. The complainant would claim compensation on the basis of non-standard basis, but the opposite
party would rely on the decision of the National Commission in the Revision Petition No.2476/2012,
dated 6-2-2014 New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs. Dirbal Singh Jhokhar where it is held that the
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/105123311/
2
A. Guhan vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd on 2 April, 2014
vehicle was plied without permit which is a breach of policy conditions and the breach is
fundamental to the conduct of insurance. Further in Sec. 66 (1) of the Motor Vehicle Act it is stated
as follows:
No owner of the motor vehicle shall use or permit the use of the vehicle as a transport vehicle in any
public place, whether or not such vehicle is carrying any passengers or goods save in accordance
with the conditions of permit granted or counter signed by a Regional or State Transport Authority
or any prescribed authority authorizing him the use of the vehicle in that place in the manner in
which the vehicle is being used.
Therefore, it is clear that no transport vehicle can be used in a public place without a valid permit.
7. Limitations as to use, it reads: The policy covers use only under a permit within the meaning of
the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 or such a carriage falling under Sub Sec. 3 of Sec 66 of the Motor Vehicle
Act, 1988.
8. Admittedly, in this case, at the time of accident, the vehicle was being plied but on a public place
without permit and therefore in view of the above clause relating to limitations as to use, the
insurance cover is not available to the insured, since there is fundamental breach of insurance
contract.
9. Therefore, we hold that the repudiation of the complainants claim does amount to deficiency in
service.
10. The District Forum has rightly dismissed the complaint on the ground that no FIR was produced
and further the complainant failed to inform the opposite party about the accident enabling spot
inspection by the opposite party; and further the breach of condition of the policy is a serious and
fundamental breach and that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/105123311/
3
A. Guhan vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd on 2 April, 2014
11. There is no infirmity in the order of the District Forum. We agree with the finding and the
decision of the District Forum dismissing the complaint. There is no merit in the appeal and
accordingly the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
12. In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the order of the District Forum dismissing the
complaint. No order as to costs in the appeal.
(J.
JAYARAM) (R. REGUPATHI) JUDICIAL MEMBER PRESIDENT
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/105123311/
4