State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
National Insurance Company Limited, vs Jasbir Singh Son Of Shri Raghbir Singh, on 9 January, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No. 1916 of 2011
Date of institution : 30.12.2011
Date of decision : 09.01.2012
National Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, SCO 25, Factory Area,
Main Road, Patiala, through its authorized signatory, National Insurance
Company Limited, Regional Office-I, SCO 332-334, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh.
.....Appellant
Versus
1. Jasbir Singh son of Shri Raghbir Singh, resident of E-526, Azad Nagar,
Sirhind Road, Patiala.
2. Inderjit Singh son of Shri Sarwan Singh, resident of village Assarpur,
Tehsil and District Patiala.
.....Respondents
First Appeal against the order dated
14.11.2011 passed by the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala.
Before:-
Sh. Piare Lal Garg, Presiding Member
Sh. Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate PIARE LAL GARG, PRESIDING MEMBER
This is an appeal filed by the National Insurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter called the "appellant") against the order dated 14.11.2011 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala (hereinafter called the District Forum) by which the complaint of the respondent no.1 was accepted by the District Forum.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent no.1/complainant got the vehicle make TATA Tipper bearing Engine no.90C62736799, Chassis no. First Appeal No. 1916 of 2011 2 COZ 301061 and model - 2009 insured with the appellants vide policy no.401406/31/09/300000208 from 13/04/09 till mid night of 12/4/2010
3. The aforesaid vehicle bearing registration no. PB 11AH-9094, while being stationed in Bhakra Colony Patiala was hit by another vehicle make TATA Tipper owned by respondent no.2 from behind. A heavy damage was caused to the vehicle of the respondent no. 1.
4. Sh. Rajesh Kumar was appointed by the appellant for the inspection of the damaged vehicle who submitted his report dated 14.04.2009 which is Annexure A-1, annexed by the appellant with the file. Sh. Suresh Madan of Madan Associates, Surveyor and Loss Assessor was appointed by the appellant for the final survey report of the vehicle, who assessed Rs. 2,67,922/- as damages to the parts of the vehicle as well as Rs. 13,500/- as labour charges and towing charges i.e. total Rs. 2,81,422/-.
5. It is also pleaded case of the respondent no.1 that on asking by Surveyor he got the vehicle repaired from PASCO Motors, Chandigarh and it was also assured by the Surveyor that the amount which was assessed as loss by him will be paid to PASCO Motors, Chandigarh. When after the repair, the respondent no.1 had gone to collect the vehicle, the officials of the PASCO Motors refused to comment over the vehicle and asked the respondent no.1 to pay the repair charges if he wants to take the delivery of the vehicle.
6. Then, respondent no.1 contacted the appellant to make the payment to the PASCO Motors so that he can get the delivery of the vehicle from the PASCO Motors, Chandigarh. But, the appellant had repudiated the claim of the respondent no.1 vide letter dated 22/07/2009 arbitrarily. In the repudiation letter, it was mentioned that the District Transport Officer, Patiala, had given a certificate that the vehicle was not having a route permit as well as the same was not registered with the registering authority. The vehicle was not enrouted and it was lying stationed in Bhakra Colony, Patiala, and the same was hit from behind First Appeal No. 1916 of 2011 3 by an another vehicle owned by respondent no. 2 as such the claim of the appellant was wrongly repudiated by the appellant.
7. Hence, the complaint was filed by the respondent no. 1 praying that the appellant may be directed to make the payment of the claimed amount and also prayed for Rs. 50,000/- as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony.
8. Upon notice, the appellant appeared and filed the written statement. Appellant admitted that respondent no.1 got his vehicle insured with it vide policy no. 401406/31/09/300000208 from 13/04/09 till mid night of 12/4/2010. Intimation was received regarding the loss of the vehicle. Mr. Goel was appointed as Surveyor for the spot survey. As per the report at the time of the accident, the vehicle was loaded with soil at Bhakra main line site. After receiving the survey report, the appellant deputed Mr. Suresh Madan, Surveyor for the assessment of the final claim. He submitted in the report that on the date of accident neither the vehicle was registered nor having route permit from the authorities. He had also sought the confirmation from the DTO, Patiala. D.T.O, Patiala, vide letter no. 3054 dated 21.07.2009, replied that "the owner of the vehicle cannot ply the vehicle on road for hire or reward till the vehicle is registered and permit is issued by the competent authority". It was denied that vehicle was not enrouted. It was prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
9. Respondent no.2/Opposite party no.2 (hereinafter called the respondent no.2) replied that vehicle TATA Tipper no. PB11AH-8694 was owned by him and the same had met with an accident with TATA Tipper no. PB11AH- 9094 of the respondent No. 1 as the vehicle of the Respondent no.2 had gone out of control from his driver and hit from behind with the vehicle of Respondent no.1. All other allegations were denied and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
10. Learned District Forum after hearing the learned counsel or the parties and going through the record, allowed the complaint and directed the First Appeal No. 1916 of 2011 4 appellant to make the payment of the Rs. 1,96,441/- to respondent no.1 within one month on receipt of the certified copy of the order failing which it shall be liable to pay the same with interest at the rate of 9% per annum till final payment from the date of order.
11. Hence, the appeal.
12. We have gone through the grounds of appeal, documents annexed with the appeal and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant.
13. The appellant had filed the appeal on the grounds that the respondent no.1 had concealed the material facts from the District Forum that at the time of accident the vehicle was being used for 'commercial purpose' and as such, there was a wilful violation of the terms and conditions of the policy as the vehicle was not registered and was not having the route permit at the time of accident.
14. There is no dispute between the parties that the vehicle in dispute was insured with the appellant at the time of accident and the same was not enrouted. The TATA Tipper (vehicle) owned by respondent no.2 bearing registration no. PB11AH-8694 hit the vehicle of the respondent no. 1 when the same was lying stationed in Bhakra Colony, Patiala.
15. The claim of the respondent no. 1 was repudiated by the appellant only on two grounds: (1) the vehicle was not registered at the time of accident, (2) the vehicle was not having a valid route permit.
16. It is the admitted case of both the parties that the vehicle was purchased by the respondent no.1 on 13.04.2009 and the accident had taken place on 20.04.2009 i.e. within a week of the purchase of the vehicle. As per rules, the vehicle is to be registered with the registration authorities within 30 days from the purchase of the same but the vehicle in dispute met with an accident within 7 days from its purchase as such version of the appellant that the respondent no.1 was not entitled for the claim as the vehicle was not registered; First Appeal No. 1916 of 2011 5 is not correct. As per the law, there is 30 days time given in the Act for the registration of the vehicle with the Registering Authority.
17. We have also perused the report of Surveyor Er. Rajesh Goel, who had mentioned against the cause and nature of accident, as under:-
"As reported by R. Inderjit Singh that when the captioned vehicle was parked on the spot of accident, the driver of another vehicle/Tipper, while reversing, misjudge the position of the insured vehicle and so hit his vehicle into the front of insured vehicle. As a result, the insured vehicle got damage, as per details given below."
18. So, from the report of the surveyor, the version of the respondent no.1 is correct that the vehicle was damaged by the driver of the vehicle of the respondent no.2 when the same was lying stationed on Bhakra Colony, Patiala. It is also the admitted case of the respondent no.2 in his reply that his vehicle TATA Tipper no. PB-11-AH-8694 had met with an accident with TATA Tipper No. PB-11-AH-9094 of the respondent no.1 when the same was lying stationed as his vehicle had gone out of control from his driver and had hit from behind with the vehicle of the respondent no.1. As such, from the report of the Surveyor as well as admission of respondent no.2, it is proved beyond doubt that the version of the respondent no.1 is correct that his vehicle was not enrouted with the same and met with an accident. The appellant had denied that the vehicle was not enrouted but no evidence was produced by the appellant to prove that the vehicle was on road when the same met with an accident. So, the repudiation of the claim of the respondent no.1 on the ground that the vehicle was not having the route permit is not correct as the vehicle was not used by the respondent no.1 for any 'commercial purpose'.
19. There is also nothing on the record that non-registration of the vehicle and not having the route permit at the time of accident has in any way contributed to the accident. Non-registration of the vehicle and not having the route permit has got no nexus with the accident.
First Appeal No. 1916 of 2011 6
20. The appellant has repudiated the claim only on the ground that the vehicle in dispute was not registered with the Registering and Licencing Authority and was not having any valid permit at the time of accident. In our view, it is not established that the accident had occurred pursuant to act of commission or omission, which would have made the insurer liable for a penal offence. For instance committing suicide by the life insured is one such act which might be considered as committing the breach of law by the insured and sufficient to dis- entitle the beneficiary from claiming the accidental benefit. We are, therefore, of the opinion that it is not each and every violation of any provision, however, slightest it may be, which can be labeled as committing breach of law. Even there is no terms and conditions produced by the appellant to prove that non- registration of the car with the Registering Authority was any violation of conditions of the policy.
21. The question now arises is that: as the vehicle was not registered and was not having the route permit at the time of accident then whether the appellant can deny the claim?
22. The appellant failed to prove such terms and conditions of the policy. It is correct that as per the Motor Vehicle Act, the registration of the vehicle is mandatory one. If the registration is not made within the prescribed period even then registration can be obtained by paying late fees. The Hon'ble Jharkhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ranchi in case "Rajendra Prasad Tiwary Versus New India Assurance Company & Ors.", I(2007)5 CPJ 391 held that even non registration of the vehicle cannot be a ground for repudiation of the just claim under the policy and in para No. 8 it was observed as follows:-
"8. Be that as it may, the question arises as to whether the claim of the complainant can be repudiated on the ground of non-submission of the registration certificate including the driving licence. According to the agreement arrived at between the complainant and the Bank, the vehicle was to be registered within one month from the date of purchase. Admittedly, the same was First Appeal No. 1916 of 2011 7 not registered till the date, the vehicle was robbed. So far as the non-production of the driving licence is concerned, this question is no longer res integra in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Jitendra Kumar v. Oriental Insurance Co. reported in IV (2003) CPJ 16, wherein it has been held that the accident took place without negligence and/or laches on the part of driver and accordingly the Insurance Company was directed to indemnify the loss. So far as the non-production of the registration certificate is concerned, as stated above, admittedly, the registration was not done and under the Motor Vehicles Act, it is incumbent upon the owner to get the vehicle registered and then ply on the road. The question now arises if the vehicle is not registered, the Insurance Company can deny the claim. It may be mentioned here that no such terms and conditions have been mentioned under the policy, albeit the Motor Vehicles Act envisages that the registration of the vehicle is mandatory one and if the registration is not made within the prescribed time even, then registration can be obtained by paying late fee of Rs. 100. In that view of the matter, we are of the view that even non registration of the vehicle cannot be a ground for repudiation of the just claim under the policy. The learned District Forum in our view has failed to exercise its jurisdiction while passing the impugned order. Accordingly, the order dated 7.11.2003 is hereby set aside and consequently this appeal is allowed."
23. It was also held by the Hon'ble National Commission in case "HDFC Chubb General Insurance Co. Ltd. versus ILA Gupta & Ors.", I (2007) CPJ 274 (NC) that "as it was very much within the knowledge of the petitioner Insurance Company that the policy could not continue to be valid due to non- provision of the Permanent Registration Number, they should have cancelled the policy in order to make the respondent take another policy or revalidate the same according to the policy conditions or whatever that was required to be done. This has not been done by the petitioner Insurance Company." It was observed in paras No. 2 & 3 as follows:-
"2. As far as getting a Permanent Registration Number is concerned, admittedly, for want of a good Registration Number, more time was taken and the respondent got it registered later. In the present case, non-registration of the Vehicle did not lead to this accident. It was just a damage arising out of a car falling into the pothole. It is not the case of the petitioner that they were not aware of the car being registered under the Temporary Registration Number while the policy was issued. An amount of Rs. 81,476 was paid as a premium for getting the car comprehensively insured. As it was very much within the knowledge of the petitioner Insurance Company that the policy could not continue to be valid First Appeal No. 1916 of 2011 8 due to non-provision of the Permanent Registration Number, they should have cancelled the policy in order to make the respondent take another policy or revalidate the same according to the policy conditions or whatever that was required to be done. This has not been done by the petitioner Insurance Company.
3. The premium amount is not a meager amount and the services that should have been rendered by the petitioner are not sufficient enough for the respondent to bring it within his knowledge that there is a lapse on his part. On such flimsy grounds, the petitioner Insurance Company cannot repudiate the claim. If they were so strict about the said conditions, knowing fully well that the Temporary Registration Number has not been made permanent, they should have brought it into the knowledge of the respondent and cancelled the policy within a reasonable time, which has not been done. Taking hefty premium of Rs. 81,476 from the respondent and thereafter repudiating the claim on flimsy ground is not justifiable."
24. In view of the above proposition of law and the matter in hand, we are of the view that even non-registration of the vehicle and was not having the route permit at the time of accident; cannot be a ground for repudiation of the just claim under the policy.
25. Our own Commission in First Appeal No. 1332 of 2009 "Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Vinod Kumar Bansal", decided on 1.2.2011; 2011 (3) CPR 104 by applying the law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, held that "breach of terms and conditions is only the sideline violation and not the basic cause of claim".
26. The order of the District Forum is detailed one and there is no infirmity in the same. The appeal of the appellant is meritless and there is no ground to issue notice to the respondents, as such, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed in limine. This order will not affect the merits of the appeal, if any, filed by the respondent no.1/complainant.
27. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 5.1.2012 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
28. The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs. 25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal. This amount of Rs. 25,000/- with First Appeal No. 1916 of 2011 9 interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to respondent No. 1 by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellant.
29. Remaining amount shall be paid by the appellant to respondent No. 1 within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of the order.
(Piare Lal Garg)
Presiding Member
January 09, 2012. (Baldev Singh Sekhon)
as Member