State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S. Iffco-Tokio Genral Insurance Co. ... vs Shri Pratap Bhagwan Patil on 7 May, 2013
Daily Order
BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
First Appeal No. A/10/1035
(Arisen out of Order Dated 23/03/2010 in Case
No. 117/09 of District Raigad)
M/S. IFFCO-TOKIO
GENRAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
ADDRESS:- AFL HOUSE, 2ND FLOOR
LOK BHARTI COMPLEX
MAROL MAROSHI ROAD
ANDHERI (E) MUMBAI
- 400 059.
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
SHRI PRATAP BHAGWAN
PATIL
R/AT:- KHARGHAR
VILLAGE
SECTOR-13
KHARGHAR, PANVEL
DISTRICT RAIGAD
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. S.R.
Khanzode PRESIDING MEMBER
HON'BLE MR.
S.B.Sawarkar MEMBER
PRESENT:
Ms.Bhavana Bhat,
Advocate for the Appellant.
Mr.Vijay Patil,
Advocate for the Respondent.
ORDER
Per - Hon'ble Mr. S. B. Sawarkar,
Member This appeal filed by the Appellant/original Opponent, M/s. IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Insurance Company' for the sake of brevity) takes an exception to an order dated 23/3/2010 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raigad (hereinafter referred to as 'the Forum' for the sake of brevity) in Consumer Complaint No.117 of 2009, Shri Pratap Bhagwan Patil Vs. IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Company Ltd.
[2] Short case here is that the Respondent/original Complainant, Mr. Pratap Bhagwan Patil (hereinafter referred to as 'the Complainant' for the sake of brevity) purchased 'Pajero-GLX 2008' model vehicle from an agency at Nerul. Complainant insured the said vehicle with the Insurance Company for the period 19/10/2007 to 18/10/2008 upon paying an insurance premium of `59,737.73ps.
[3] The Complainant wanted a specific VIP registration number for his vehicle from the RTO which was not possible for him to get it from the RTO and, therefore, did not register the vehicle with the RTO and kept it standing in an unplied condition.
[4] It was alleged by the Complainant that on 30/6/2008 the insured vehicle was stolen away from the place where it was parked. He lodged a complaint with police on 2/7/2008 and also intimated the RTO. Police investigated the offence of theft and declared it to be true but, undetected and accordingly, issued an 'A' Summary. The Complainant, thereafter, lodged an insurance claim with the Insurance Company. However, the Insurance Company repudiated his claim on the ground that the insured vehicle was not registered with the RTO and appeared to have been used on road. The Complainant, therefore, filed a complaint before the Forum. After due trial the complaint was allowed and the Forum directed the Insurance Company to pay to the Complainant an amount of `17,86,950/- towards settlement of his insurance claim besides an amount of `7,000/- by way of compensation towards mental and physical agony and costs of `3,000/-. These amounts were directed to be paid to the Complainant within a period of forty-five days from the date of order and failing which the amount was to carry penal interest @ 5% p.a. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the Insurance Company preferred this appeal.
[5] Heard both the parties and perused the record.
[6] The question before our consideration is, whether non-registration of the insured vehicle with the RTO amounts to breach of policy condition and consequentially leads to negation of the insurance claim of the Complainant.
[7] We find that the Complainant had properly insured his vehicle. The Complainant wanted to a get specific registration number for his vehicle from the RTO for which he made request to the agent as well as to the RTO. However, as the allotment of particular registration number '001' was possible only after exhaustion of the running series, the Complainant was required to wait for the start of the new series. The Complainant had, therefore, kept the insured vehicle parked.
It is an undisputed fact that the insured vehicle was not being plied and it was stolen when it was parked in a private place. It was not stolen from the road or whilst it was being used. Registration of a vehicle with the RTO is for the purpose of using it on road and to ply it for the purpose of transport. It would only violate the law as laid down under Section-39 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 if it is plied without being registered with the RTO and brought on the road.
[8] The insured vehicle was not used and was only maintained in private premises. Without its use on the road it would certainly not result into violation of law. At the same time non-registration of the insured vehicle may be objected as a breach of provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 but, there is nothing to construe that non-registration will also be a breach of conditions of insurance policy. Insurance policy is against the damages and the Insurance Company can repudiate the insurance claim only for the illegal use of the insured vehicle. However, that ground would not be certainly available to the Insurance Company even though the vehicle is not registered with the RTO when the vehicle is not being plied and is simply parked idle.
Awaiting permanent registration of the insured vehicle with the RTO cannot be a ground for refusal of claim for damages. Here, the claim for damages is for the theft of the insured vehicle and not during the use of the insured vehicle. Therefore, non-registration i.e. awaiting permanent registration of the insured vehicle ought not to have resulted into negation of insurance claim filed by the Complainant.
[9] We find, therefore, that the Forum rightly concluded that there is deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company due to arbitrary repudiation of the claim.
We further find that the order of the Forum is well-reasoned and correct and, therefore, need not be disturbed in an appeal. Thus, we find that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves to be dismissed. We hold accordingly and pass the following order:-
ORDER Appeal stands dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Inform the parties accordingly.
Pronounced on 07th May, 2013 [HON'BLE MR. S.R. Khanzode] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MR. S.B.Sawarkar] MEMBER KVS