Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 13 (UTT)

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY v. HARBANS SINGH

2014-01-21

B.C.KANDPAL, C.C.PANT

body2014
ORDER (Per: Justice B.C. Kandpal, President): This is insurer’s appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 10.10.2008 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun in consumer complaint No. 149 of 2004, whereby the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and directed the appellant – opposite party to pay compensation of Rs. 1,05,700/- to the respondent – complainant together with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the consumer complaint till payment. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case, are that the complainant is the registered owner of truck No. UP07-F-2965. The said truck was insured with the appellant – United India Insurance Company Limited at an IDV of Rs. 2,80,000/- for the period from 23.04.2003 to 22.04.2004. On 22.08.2003, Deputy Commissioner, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh issued a letter to Sh. Subhash Kumar, IAS, Commissioner, Garhwal Mandal, Pauri for deployment of trucks for transportation of apples from District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh. The goods tax on transport vehicles entering Himachal Pradesh was exempted from 01.08.2003 to 31.10.2003 vide H.P. Govt. Notification No. EXN-F(10)2/2003 dated 13.08.2003. As per the requirement, 100 trucks were to be sent each day to Rohru Sub-Division for a period of one month and the said truck were to go to various places in the county like Delhi, Kolkata, Kanpur, Mumbai etc. The transportation charges were to be borne by apple orchardists. On the basis of the said letter, the Regional Transport Authority, Dehradun issued a letter dated 25.08.2003 to the President, Truck Operators Union, Dehradun/ Rishikesh/Haridwar/Roorkee, stating therein that the Union Members, whose vehicles have been granted National Permit, be intimated about the above letter dated 22.08.2003 issued by Deputy Commissioner, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh. On the basis of the letter dated 25.08.2003, the President, Truck Operators Union, Dehradun issued a letter dated 10.10.2004 and the complainant was directed to take his truck to Shimla. When the insured vehicle was coming back from Shimla to Dehradun, it met with an accident on 13.09.2003. The complainant lodged the claim with the insurance company, which was repudiated by the insurance company on the ground that as per the permit, the complainant was not authorised to take the vehicle to the area where it met with an accident. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the insurance company, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Dehradun. 3. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the insurance company, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Dehradun. 3. The insurance company filed written statement before the District Forum and pleaded that the place where the accident took place, was not covered under the permit granted to the complainant; that as per the letter of the Deputy Commissioner, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, only the transport vehicles were exempted from payment of goods tax on entering Himachal Pradesh in respect of transportation of apples from Himachal Pradesh for the period from 01.08.2003 to 31.10.2003 and that the claim was rightly repudiated and no deficiency in service was made by the insurance company. 4. The District Forum, on an appreciation of the material on record, allowed the consumer complaint vide impugned order dated 10.10.2008 in the above manner. Aggrieved by the said order, the insurance company has filed this appeal. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for parties and have also perused the record. 6. The insurance company has repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that, “the claim is not maintainable as the permit in the present matter did not authorise to carry out the vehicle at the area where accident occurred as discussed”, as has been mentioned in the repudiation letter (Paper No. 35). 7. As is stated above, the accident in question took place when the insured vehicle was coming back from Shimla to Dehradun. The vehicle in question was granted National Permit for carrying goods by the RTA, Dehradun, which was valid for the period from 06.06.1996 to 05.06.2001 and the same was further renewed for the period from 30.06.2003 to 05.06.2004. The said permit was a National Permit and there is mention of Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh in the said permit. At the time of the accident, the vehicle was being driven by Sh. Kulvinder Singh, whose driving licence was endorsed for hill routes w.e.f. 06.11.2001 to 05.11.2004. Hence, on the date of the accident, i.e., 13.09.2003, the driver was authorised to drive the vehicle on hill roads. 8. As is stated above, the permit issued by the Transport Authority in favour of the complainant was a National Permit and the names of certain States have also been mentioned therein. Hence, on the date of the accident, i.e., 13.09.2003, the driver was authorised to drive the vehicle on hill roads. 8. As is stated above, the permit issued by the Transport Authority in favour of the complainant was a National Permit and the names of certain States have also been mentioned therein. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the insured vehicle had gone to Shimla on the basis of the letter dated 22.08.2003 issued by Deputy Commissioner, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh to Sh. Subhash Kumar, IAS, Commissioner, Garhwal Mandal, Pauri for deployment of trucks for transportation of apples from District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh and in connection whereof, the Regional Transport Authority, Dehradun had issued a letter dated 25.08.2003 to the President, Truck Operators Union, Dehradun/Rishikesh/Haridwar/ Roorkee for sending trucks for transportation of apples. The payment of goods tax on transport vehicles entering Himachal Pradesh was exempted for the period from 01.08.2003 to 31.10.2003 vide H.P. Govt. Notification No. EXN-F(10)2/2003 dated 13.08.2003. Hence, the complainant was not required to have specific authorisation in his permit for entering into the State of Himachal Pradesh, in view of the fact that he was issued a National Permit and the payment of goods tax was exempted by the Govt. of Himachal Pradesh for the transport vehicles for a certain period. 9. This apart, Section 66(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 deals with necessity for permits. Section 66(3)(f) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 states that the provisions of sub-section (1) shall not apply “to any transport vehicle used for any other public purpose as may be prescribed by the State Government in this behalf” and as per Section 66(3)(n) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the provisions of sub-section (1) shall not apply “to any transport vehicle used for such purposes as the Central or State Government may, by order, specify.” 10. As is stated above, the vehicle in question had gone to Shimla for transportation of apples in connection with the letter issued by the Govt. of Himachal Pradesh and in pursuance whereof, the Regional Transport Authority, Dehradun had issued letter to the Truck Union for sending the trucks for transportation of apples, which can very well be said to be “public purpose” and certainly, the insured vehicle had gone to Shimla as per the order issued by the State Government. of Himachal Pradesh and in pursuance whereof, the Regional Transport Authority, Dehradun had issued letter to the Truck Union for sending the trucks for transportation of apples, which can very well be said to be “public purpose” and certainly, the insured vehicle had gone to Shimla as per the order issued by the State Government. Thus, the complainant can not be said to have committed breach of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as well as the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and the insurance company was not justified in repudiating the claim of the complainant and has thereby committed deficiency in service. 11. So far as the quantum is concerned, the surveyor Sh. B.B. Garg in his survey report dated 19.01.2004 (Paper Nos. 84 to 89), has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 69,995.38/-. In his summary of assessment, the surveyor has mentioned the estimates total labour charges as Rs. 1,74,160/- and total cost of spare parts as Rs. 2,30,000/-, total whereof comes to Rs. 4,04,160/-. From the perusal of the report of the surveyor, it is evident that he has applied the depreciation factor at a high rate and has only awarded Rs. 15,000/- towards labour charges. The District Forum has considered the surveyor’s report in detail and has rightly come to the conclusion that the complainant is entitled to sum of Rs. 1,05,700/- as compensation. We do not find any infirmity in the said assessment made by the District Forum. However, the interest awarded by the District Forum @9% p.a. is on the higher side and in our considered opinion, the same need to be reduced to 7% p.a. and the order impugned is to be modified to this extent only and the appeal is to be partly allowed. 12. For the reasons aforesaid, appeal is partly allowed. Order impugned dated 10.10.2008 of the District Forum is modified to the extent that the rate of interest is hereby reduced from 9% p.a. to 7% p.a. Rest of the impugned order passed by the District Forum is hereby confirmed. No order as to costs.