State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The New India Assurance Company Ltd. At ... vs Sunil Kumar Wadhwa Son Of Shri Lekh Raj ... on 6 July, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA First Appeal No.393 of 2011 Date of Institution: 16.03.2011 Date of Decision: 06.07.2012 The New India Assurance Company Ltd. at Thanesar, through its Branch Manager, now through its authorized signatory of Chandigarh Regional Office, SCO No.36-37, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh. Appellant (OP) Versus Sunil Kumar Wadhwa son of Shri Lekh Raj Wadhwa, r/o Mohan Nagar Layalpur Basti, Thanesar, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra. Respondent (Complainant) BEFORE: Honble Mr. Justice R.S. Madan, President. Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member. For the Parties: Shri R.C. Gupta, Advocate for appellant. Shri Vivek Goel, Advocate for respondent. O R D E R
Justice R.S. Madan, President:
This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 14.01.2011 passed by District Consumer Forum, Kurukshetra in complaint bearing No.755/2007 which relates to insurable benefits of vehicle which was stolen during the subsistence of the Insurance Policy obtained by the respondent-complainant from the appellant-opposite party.
Undisputed facts of the present case are that the complainant had purchased an Ape Delivery Van bearing Chasis No.CGA-258310, Engine No.111380 from Neel Automobiles Yamuna Nagar on 16.12.2005 for a sum of Rs.1,31,000/- which was got insured with the appellant-opposite party vide policy dated 4.2.2004 valid upto 3.2.2007. On 6.2.2006 the above said vehicle was stolen from Arora Palace, Kurukshetra.
F.I.R. No.65 dated 9.2.2006 under Section 379 I.P.C. was registered in Police Station City Thanesar District Kurukshetra. Intimation was given to the opposite party. The claim of the complainant was repudiated on the ground that the complainant failed to furnish the necessary documents i.e. Registration Certificate of the vehicle with the opposite party. Challenging the repudiation of his claim, the complainant invoked the jurisdiction of the District Consumer Forum by filing complaint.
Upon notice, the opposite party appeared and contested the complaint by filing written statement wherein repudiation of complainants claim was justified in view of the facts stated in the preceding para of this order. It was prayed that the complaint merited dismissal.
On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced on the record, District Forum accepted complaint with the following observations:-
6. To us on appraisal of rival contentions, the contention of OP is held devoid of force because the sale letter, insurance cover note, insurance policy, copy of FIR or copy of superdari and copy of recovery memo all depicts the name of complainant as owner. Otherwise also the insurance of a vehicle goes with the vehicle and not with the person. In the present case since the cover note is in the name of complainant. Policy is also issued in the name of complainant, claim is submitted in the name of complainant and so repudiation of the claim submitted has no meaning. The second contention of OP is that the damage has been assessed by the surveyor to the tune of Rs.47,102/-. But the same on appraisal is held devoid of force because the vehicle in question was insured for a value of Rs.1,24,450/-. After theft only its body was recovered and no other part was recovered. So the claim submitted by the complainant to the tune of Rs.99,584/-
in our view not in any way excess rather its seems to be genuine. So the complaint moved in our view has merits.
7. For the foregoing reasons, we accept this complaint and direct the Op to pay Rs.99,584/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till final realization. This order shall be complied within 30 days.
Aggrieved against the order of the District Forum, opposite party has come up in appeal.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.
On behalf of the appellant it has been argued that complainants claim was rightly repudiated as the complainant had failed to furnish the Registration Certificate of the vehicle. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-complainant has contended that all other documents i.e. sale letter, insurance cover note, insurance policy and copy of Sapurdari were produced by the complainant which show the ownership of the complainant with respect to the vehicle and thus prayed for maintaining the order of the District Forum.
Having considered the rival contentions on behalf of the parties, we find force in the arguments raised on behalf of the appellant in view of law settled in case KAUSHALENDRA KUMAR MISHRA versus ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., I(2012) CPJ 559 (NC) wherein Honble National Consumer Commission has held as under:-
8. In our view, these arguments are neither legally correct nor acceptable. Registration of the vehicle is mandatory requirement of the law. The relevant provision, Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, reads:
No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this Chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner.
Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a motor vehicle in possession of a dealer subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government.
Clearly therefore, till the vehicle receives this certification of registration from the competent authority, it is not legally useable on roads. Averments in the complaint petition itself show that the Motorcycle was used by the Complainant for dropping his uncle to the Railway Station, Satna and that the incident had happened on its return journey. This use of the motorcycle was in clear violation of the statutory requirements of registration.
9. In view of the above, we find ourselves in complete agreement with the State Commission that use of the vehicle in violation of the law itself will take it beyond the protection of the policy. We accordingly, uphold the view of the State Commission that under the circumstances of the case, the Insurance Company was justified in repudiating the claim of the revision petitioner/complainant Admittedly, the complainant had purchased the vehicle on 16.12.2005 and the same was stolen on 6.2.2006 but till that date the vehicle was not got registered from the Registration Authority. As per Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the registration of the vehicle is mandatory requirement of the law to drive the vehicle on any public place or in any other place. Thus, the complainant violated the provision of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. By now it is well settled law that the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy have to be construed strictly for settling Insurance Claims. Reference is made to case law cited as SURAJ MAL RAM NIWAS OIL MILLS (P) LTD. versus UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY & ANR, IV(2010) CPJ 38 (S.C.).
The instant case is fully covered by KAUSHALENDRA KUMAR MISHRA versus ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. (Supra) and SURAJ MAL RAM NIWAS OIL MILLS (P) LTD. case (Supra). As the complainant was plying his vehicle on the public way without registering the same with the concerned Registration Authority, thus he violated the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act as well as the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. District Forum has failed to appreciate the above stated facts of the case. Hence, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law and the Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay any insurable benefits to the complainant.
Accordingly, this appeal is accepted, impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.
The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal and Rs.34,875/- deposited on 13.05.2011 in view of the order dated 28th March, 2011 passed by this Commission, be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal and revision, if any filed in this case.
Announced: Justice R.S. Madan 06.07.2012 President B.M. Bedi Judicial Member