National Consumer Disputes Redressal
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Sh. Rajesh Yadav on 1 April, 2014
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 3101 OF 2013 (From order dated 22.05.2013 in First Appeal No. 924 of 2012 of the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi) WITH I.A. No. 5437 OF 2013 (Stay) The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 12/1, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi Also at : DRO-I, Jeevan Bharti Connaught Circus, New Delhi Petitioner Versus Shri Rajesh Yadav R/o. H.No.335/1, Village Khandoda Tehsil Bawal, Rewari, Haryana Also at : H.No.WZ-131, Saidpur Village Patel Nagar, New Delhi Respondent BEFORE: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE DR. S. M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. P. K. Seth, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Ashwani Kumar Sharma, Advocate PRONOUNCED ON 1ST APRIL, 2014 O R D E R
JUSTICE J.M.MALIK
1. Sh.
Rajesh Yadav, the complainant, purchased a Tata Sumo Car from M/s. Dhingra Motors Pvt. Ltd., for a total consideration of Rs.5,40,328/-. The said vehicle was given temporary registration No.HR 99-DS-9623. The said vehicle was financed with Tata Motors Finance Ltd., OP2, for a total sum of Rs.4,00,000/-. The complainant also obtained insurance from New India Assurance Co. Ltd., the petitioner/OP1, for a sum of Rs.5,38,960/-. The insurance policy commenced from 24.07.2009 to 23.07.2010. On 18.08.2009, the vehicle was stolen by someone, when it was parked near the house of the complainant, who lodged a complaint with the concerned Police Station, New Delhi, on the same day. The complainant informed the OP, in writing, on 31.08.2009, with regard to the theft. The Police Station, Patel Nagar, New Delhi, submitted its untraced report, on 09.09.2009, before the concerned Magistrate, which was accepted by the learned Magistrate, on 23.02.2010.
2. The claim of the complainant was repudiated on 29.04.2010, on twin grounds. The repudiation letter runs as follows:-
Sir, In the captioned claim, on examination of the relevant documents and the report of the investigator, it has been revealed that at the time of alleged theft of the vehicle Regn.No.HR-47 BT-0295, on 18.08.2009, the said vehicle was being brought from Haryana State to Delhi without valid permit.
You are aware that your vehicle is a transport vehicle and was not permitted to ply on the road/public place, without a valid permit issued by the concerned RTO. The vehicle was registered in the State of Haryana and you are also a resident of Rewari, Haryana. Thus, in plying the vehicle, without valid permit, particularly, from the state of Haryana to Delhi, was not only the breach of the policy condition but also in violation of the provision of Section 66(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.
Therefore, had you not plied the vehicle from Haryana State to Delhi, for want of valid Permit, the incident of theft at Delhi, as you have stated, would not have occurred. Accordingly, your insurance claim is not admissible and is repudiated.
3. The complainant filed the complaint before the District Forum. The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the insurance company to pay a sum of Rs.4,40,326/- @ 9% interest, from the date of claim, till its realization and awarded a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation, for the harassment to the complainant out of which, Rs.50,000/- was to be deducted from the salary of the Divisional Manager, who had repudiated the claim.
4. Aggrieved by this order, the insurance company filed First Appeal before the State Commission, which dismissed the appeal.
5. We have heard the counsel for the parties, at length. Learned counsel for the respondent/complainant has drawn our attention towards the temporary registration certificate which goes to show that the temporary registration certificate HR-99-DS-TEMP-9623, was given to the complainant for one month only, from 24.07.2009 to 23.08.2009.
6. The first question which falls for consideration is, whether, the complainant was entitled to drive the vehicle from Haryana to Delhi without permit. The State Commission observed that, whereas the temporary permit was issued from 24.07.2009 to 23.08.2009, but the same is valid only for Haryana, but the complainant did not have permit for entering into Delhi State. The State Commission was pleased to observe, in para 8 of its judgment, as under :-
On going through the record, we find that as per the averment made in the complaint, the complainant has taken a specific and categorical plea that the vehicle in question is Tata Sumo No.HR-99-DS-9623 which was registered in his name and the insurance policy was issued by the appellant for a period from 24.07.2009 to 23.07.2010. It is very surprising that in the written statement, the appellant/OP No.1 has given a different vehicle bearing No.HR-47-BT-0295, and has taken the plea that it is the transport vehicle which was being plied without any valid permit from Haryana to Delhi. Therefore, there is a violation of the condition under section 66(1) of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. In support, the appellant/OP No.1, has filed the various documents along with the written statement. Paper No.39 is a letter of intimation dated 31.08.2009 to the insurance company, specifically mentioning that the vehicle was a new one and the policy No. is 32010031090100200503 from 24.07.2009 to 23.07.2010. In this letter, addressed to the insurance company, i.e., the appellant, vehicle, the registration was not mentioned inasmuch as it was a new vehicle. The type of the vehicle is the Tata Sumo, as averred in the complaint. The appellant/OP No.1, has also filed the insurance policy which paper is No.36, showing the same policy No., as given herein above and in the column of the registration, it is stated that it is a new vehicle. Obviously, the vehicle No., and for which the other documents, have been filed by the appellant/ OP No.1, in the written statement, is a different one, as HR-47-BT-0295. It is also very surprising that in respect of this vehicle, the appellant has filed the copy of the permit which is paper No.38. The vehicle for which the entire particulars and the defence has been taken by the insurance company, i.e., the appellant, is not an issue. It appears that the insurance company, i.e., the appellant, has not filed any papers in respect of the vehicle No.HR-99-DS-9623, as herein above is mentioned, was issued.
It was further held :
We are constrained to hold that the District Forum has rightly directed that out of the compensation awarded to the complainant, an amount of Rs.50,000/- shall be recovered from the salary of the Divisional Manager who has signed the written statement with the closed eyes and we must say that he does not deserve to be the Divisional Manager of such a insurance company, which is a public sector undertaking. Vehicle bearing No.HR-99-DS-9623, was registered and the insurance policy was issued, which is not disputed by the insurance company, which was stolen and for which the Police submitted the closer report and it was also accepted by the concerned Magistrate.
7. It appears that both the fora below have not perused the papers, properly. The information given to the insurance company assumes importance. In the report dated 01.10.2009, filed by none, other than, Mr.Rajesh Yadav, the complainant, himself, to the MLO Authority, mentions that his car No.HR-47-BT-0295, was stolen, on 18.08.2009, when it was placed before Shadipur Depot, Patel Nagar Police Station, New Delhi. It was mentioned that his vehicle HR-47-BT-0295 should be traced. It appears that he had got the permanent registration number and had given this number to the MLO and RTO, Rewari. The complainant has also put on record the National Crime Records Bureau, Motor Vehicle Coordination System, where the number was mentioned as HR-47BT0295. It was further mentioned that temporary registration No., of Tata Sumo was HR-99 DS 9623, which was stolen on 18.08.2009. The complainant also sent printed intimation letter to the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., on 31.08.2009, wherein it was stated that his car had been stolen. He did not mention either the temporary number or the permanent number. This information was given to the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Azadpur, Delhi, on 05.11.2009, in which, it was also mentioned that the total claim came to be Rs.5,12,000/-. This is signed by the complainant himself.
8. It must be borne in mind that numbers HR-99-DS-9623 and HR-47-BT-0295 are of the same vehicle. The first one, is the Temporary Registration number and the second one is the Permanent Registration Number.
Perhaps, this fact has escaped the notice of the fora below.
9. Now, we advert to Section 66(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which runs as follows:-
Chapter V Control of Transport Vehicles
66. Necessity for permits :-- (1) No owner of a 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 actually carrying any passengers or goods save in accordance with the conditions of a permit granted or countersigned 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 :
Provided that a stage carriage permit shall, subject to any conditions that may be specified in the permit, authorize the use of the vehicle as a contract carriage:
Provided further that a stage carriage permit may, subject to any conditions that may be specified in the permit, authorize the use of the vehicle as a goods carriage either when carrying passengers or not;
Provided also that a goods carriage permit shall, subject to any conditions that may be specified in the permit, authorize the holder to use the vehicle for the carriage of goods for or in connection with a trade or business carried on by him.
10. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that permit and the temporary registration number, are the same and there is no difference between the permit and the temporary registration card.
11. We find no force in this argument, in view of Section 66 (1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The State Commission was also confused about it, as stated above.
12. It is surprising to note that without having a valid permit for Delhi, both the fora below have allowed the complaint, for the reasons best known to them. Having permit for a particular place, is a necessary condition and its violation, does not lead the complainant to have the compensation on non-standard basis. The complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed on this score only.
13. Again, there was a huge delay in informing about the theft to the insurance company. The theft took place on 18.08.2009, but the information was given to the insurance company, on 31.08.2009. Delay in informing the insurance company was fatal as it deprived the insurance company of its legitimate right to enquire into the alleged theft of vehicle and make an endeavor to recover the same. The Honble Apex Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Parvesh Chander Chadha Civil Appeal No.6739/2010, decided on 17.08.2010, dismissed the complaint, holding that in terms of the policy issued by the insurance company, the insured was duty bound to inform about the theft of the vehicle, immediately, after the incident. Delay in intimation deprives the insurance company of its legitimate right to get enquiry conducted into the alleged theft of vehicle and make an endeavor to recover the same that the insurance company could not be settled with the liability to pay compensation to the insured despite the fact that he had not complied with the terms of the policy.
14. Similar view was taken by the Bench headed by Honble Mr.Justice Ashok Bhan in case Mohammadali Liyakatali Pathan Vs. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., RP No.3183 of 2011, decided on 12.07.2012. In First Appeal No.321 of 2005, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Trilochan Jane, decided on 09.12.2009, the Bench headed by Honble Mr.Justice Ashok Bhan, placed reliance on United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Harchand Rai Chandan Lal, JT 2004 (8) SC 8, it was held that the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nitin Khandelwal, (2008) 11 SCC 256, was not applicable.
15. In view of the foregoing reasons, we accept the revision petition filed by the insurance company, set aside the orders of the fora below in their entirety and dismiss the complaint. No action is called for against the Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Company Ltd.
...
(J. M. MALIK, J) PRESIDING MEMBER ...
(DR.
S. M. KANTIKAR) MEMBER Dd/15