National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Narinder Singh vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. on 12 April, 2013
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 4951 OF 2012 (From the order dated 22.8.2012 in First Appeal No. 104/2011 & FA/328/2011 of the Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla) Narinder Singh, Son of Sh. Sant Ram, Resident of Village Mohali, P.O. Garaog, The Kotkhai, Distt. Shimla, Himachal Pradesh ... Petitioner Versus 1. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Office: New India Assurance Building 87, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Mumbai 2. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Timber House, Cart Road, Shimla Through its Divisional Manager 3. Magma Leasing Ltd., SCO 10, 1st Floor, Sector, 26, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh Through its Regional Manager 4. Sh. Sanjay Bhardwaj, Resident of Bhardwaj Niwas, Near Cemetery Gate, Cemetery Road, Sanjauli, Shimla, H.P. . Respondent(s) BEFORE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER Appeared on 19.03.2013 at the time of arguments, For the Petitioner Mr. P.P. Chauhan, Advocate Ms. Pooja Singh, Advocate PRONOUNCED ON : 12th APRIL, 2013 O R D E R
PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER This revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 22.08.2012 passed by the Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla (hereinafter referred to as State Commission) in First Appeal No. 104/2011 and First Appeal No. 328 of 2011, vide which, First Appeal No. 104 of 2011 filed by the respondent/opposite party-New India Assurance Co. Ltd., was allowed, the order passed by the District Forum dated 18.1.2011 was set aside and the complaint filed by the present petitioner was dismissed. Vide the same order, the First Appeal No. 328 of 2011 filed by the petitioner was dismissed as infructuous.
2. In brief, the facts of the case are, the petitioner/complainant purchased a Mahindra Pick UP BS-II 4 WD vehicle and got it insured with M/s. New India Assurance Company for the period 12.12.2005 to 11.12.2006. The vehicle was temporary registered for a period of one month, which was to expire on 11.01.2006. On 02.02.2006, the vehicle met with an accident and got damaged. An intimation about the accident was given to the opposite party, which appointed a surveyor who assessed the loss at Rs. 2,60,845/-
on repair basis. The insurance claim was however, repudiated by the opposite party on the ground that Rajeev Hetta, who was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident did not possess a valid and effective driving license and also, the vehicle had not been registered after the expiry of the temporary registration certificate on 11.01.2006. The complainant then filed a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shimla and vide order dated 18.1.2011, his complaint was allowed and the opposite party/respondent was asked to pay 75% of Rs. 4,30,037/- along with interest @ 9% per annum with effect from the date of filing the complaint. It was observed by the District Forum that the surveyor had estimated the loss to be Rs.
4,13,548.55, but he had not given any reason for reducing the loss to Rs. 2,60,845/-. The District Forum held that the opposite party/Company cannot escape its liability to indemnify the insured to the entire insurance claim of Rs. 4,30,037/- on non-standard basis. Against the order of the District Forum, two appeals were filed before the State Commission, one by the opposite party/New India Assurance Co. and other by the complainant. The State Commission accepted the appeal of the respondent/opposite party and set aside the order of the District Forum and dismissed the complaint. The appeal filed by the complainant was dismissed as infructuous. It is against this order that the present petition has been filed.
3. The main ground taken by the petitioner is that even when a vehicle is used without registration having been done, it does not amount to violation of any statutory requirement and in such a case, if the accident takes place, the insured is entitled to claim benefit under the insurance policy. There is no statutory bar in insuring the vehicle without registration and hence there is no bar in making payment of insured sum in the eventuality of an accident. The impugned judgment was therefore not based on correct appreciation of the facts on record. In such cases, 75% of the amount of damage was definitely required to be given.
4. On the other hand, the case of the respondent is that the vehicle can be driven only after proper registration has been affected. In the instant case, the vehicle was being driven without registration, which is violation of Section 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
5. We have examined the entire material on record and given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us. The State Commission, after a careful examination of the facts of this case and after examining the Licence Clerk of the Theog Licencing Authority came to the conclusion that the licence possessed by Rajeev Hetta had been endorsed for HGV with effect from 20.04.2002, which was valid for three years. The licence was also endorsed for LMV-Transport with effect from 07.6.2003, which was also valid for three years. The accident had taken place on 02.02.2006, on which date the licence for HGV had expired, but it remained valid for LMV-Transport. It is clear therefore, that the driver had a valid and effective licence. However, it is also clear from the facts on record that the temporary registration of the vehicle done by the Registration Authority of UT, Chandigarh had expired on 11.01.2006. At the time of accident on 02.02.2006, the vehicle was being driven without registration, which is prohibited under Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and is also an offence under Section 192 of the said Act. The State Commission have rightly quoted the judgements given by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Kaushalendra Kumar Mishra Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. as report in II (2012) CPJ 189 (NC), saying that the damaged vehicle, although insured, is not entitled to claim indemnification under the insurance policy.
6. In view of the facts explained above, it is quite clear that the order of the State Commission is based on a correct appreciation of the facts and documents on record and there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. The petition is therefore, ordered to be dismissed, with no order as to costs.
..
(K.S. CHAUDHARI J.) PRESIDING MEMBER ..
(DR. B.C. GUPTA) MEMBER SB/4