State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
National Insurance Company Limited vs Suman Rani on 2 June, 2017
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No.487 of 2016
Date of institution : 27.06.2016
Reserved on : 22.05.2017
Date of decision :02.06.2017
1. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. DIVISIONAL
OFFICE-10, FLAT NO.101-106, N-1, BMC HOUSE,
CANNAUGHT PALACE, NEW DELHI-110 011, THROUGH
ITS DULY CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY MRS. ARCHNA
AGGARWAL, ASSISTANT MANAGER.
2. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., FEROZEPUR
ROAD, MOGA, THROUGH ITS DULY CONSTITUTED
ATTORNEY MRS. ARCHNA AGGARWAL, ASSISTANT
MANAGER.
....APPELLANTS-OPPOSITE PARTIES
Versus
SUMAN RANI WIFE OF LATE SURINDERPAL SON OF
JAGDISH RAI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SMALSAR, DISTRICT
MOGA.
....RESPONDENT-COMPLAINANT
First Appeal against the order dated
3.5.2016 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Moga.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, President
Mr. Harcharan Singh Guram, Member.
Present:-
For the appellants : Sh. Parminder Singh, Advocate. For the respondent : Ms. Anju Arora, Advocate. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL, PRESIDENT The instant First Appeal has been preferred by the appellants/opposite parties against the order dated 3.5.2016 First Appeal No. 487 of 2016 2 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Moga (in short, "District Forum"), vide which the complaint filed by, Suman Rani, respondent/complainant, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, was partly allowed and the opposite parties were directed to make payment of ₹2,18,400/- i.e. 75% of the total loss of ₹2,91,200/-, which was assessed as per Survey Report Ex.OP-9 to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till final realization. They were also directed to pay ₹5,000/- as compensation and ₹3,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. It would be apposite to mention that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District Forum.
3. Brief facts, as averred in the complaint, are that the husband of the complainant; namely, Late Surinderpal was the owner of the vehicle Swift VDI car bearing Registration No.PB29R-3764 and the said vehicle was fully insured with the opposite party-Insurance Company, vide Insurance Cover Note No.35101031136134285894 and the said policy was valid from 27.1.2014 to 26.1.2015. On 14.6.2014 at about 9.45 P.M. Surinderpal along with complainant and Ashwani Kumar s/o Sadhu Ram and Rajwinder Kaur w/o Sukhwinder Singh residents of Village Thathi Bahi were going to Ludhiana to attend the sanskar ceremony of his close relative and when they reached just ahead of Village Chowkiman, then from front side one Bus bearing Registration No.PB-05-S-9564 being driven by Baljinder Singh r/o First Appeal No. 487 of 2016 3 Malapur Syal negligently came and it struck into the car being driven by Surinderpal, as a result of which Surinderpal died on the spot and the said car was badly damaged. On the statement of Arun Joshi, FIR No.118 dated 14.6.2014 under Section 304- A/279/337/338/427 IPC was got registered at PS-Dakha. The said car was got repaired from Pankaj Motors, Moga, by the complainant and she spent huge amount of Rs.3,77,003/- on repairs of the vehicle. The complainant lodged the insurance claim for the same but the opposite parties refused to admit the rightful claim of the complainant.
4. Upon notice opposite parties filed written statement taking preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable. The complainant is estopped by her own act and conduct and that the complainant has not complied with the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The complainant concealed, suppressed and misstated the material facts and has not come to the District Forum with clean hands. It is admitted that Late Surinderpal purchased the said car on 27.1.2014 and got the same insured with the opposite parties, vide policy number as mentioned in the complaint for the period from 27.1.2014 to 26.1.2015. The Engine number of the said vehicle was 2303832 and Chassis number was 589347. Temporary registration number of the vehicle was PB- 29H/temp/2014/6915 and the same was valid till 26.2.2014. After the lodging of the insurance claim, the opposite parties immediately appointed the Surveyor and Loss Assessor, who after First Appeal No. 487 of 2016 4 inspection and investigation found that the registration number of the said vehicle in the name of Surinderpal was PB-29-R-3764 (temporary registration No.PB-29-H-6915) and the date of registration of the same was 17.7.2014. The vehicle was purchased on 27.1.2014 and the accident took place on 14.6.2014. It means that at the time of accident the said vehicle was not registered with the Registering Authority, which is against the guidelines as well as fundamental breach of terms and conditions of insurance policy. As per law and under Section 192 of Motor Vehicles Act, using a vehicle on public place without registration is an offence. The information of the accident was given after delay of almost two months. Hence, the opposite parties rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant as not maintainable, vide letter dated 20.1.2016.
5. Both the sides produced evidence in support of their respective averments before the District Forum, which after going through the same and hearing learned counsel on their behalf, partly allowed the complaint, vide impugned order. Hence, this appeal.
6. We have heard learned counsel for both the sides and have carefully gone through the records of the case.
7. It was vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the appellants-opposite parties that the husband of the complainant purchased a new Swift VDI car with a Temporary Registration Number PB-29-H(T) 6915 on 27.1.2014 which was financed by First Appeal No. 487 of 2016 5 Punjab Gramin Bank and got the same insured with the opposite parties for the period from 27.1.2014 to 26.1.2015. The aforesaid temporary registration number was valid for a period of 30 days from the date of issue i.e. till 26.2.2014. However, the husband of the complainant did not get the insured vehicle registered with the Registering Authority within 30 days nor applied for extension of temporary registration of the vehicle. The said vehicle met with an accident on 14.6.2014. Thereafter the registration certificate was applied and the same was issued on 17.7.2014 i.e. after the accident. It was further argued that as per the provisions of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, no vehicle shall be driven in any public place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with Chapter IV of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. As per the provisions of Section 43 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the temporary registration number is valid only for a period of 30 days within which period permanent registration number has to be obtained. Since the insured did not obtain the permanent registration number of the insured vehicle even after the expiry of 30 days till the date of accident, he certainly committed breach of the provisions of Section 39, 41 and 43 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The use of vehicle without registration is also punishable under Section 192 of the said Act and the same nowhere provides that if the vehicle is registered subsequently even on payment of late fee etc., then the offence committed under Section 192 thereof would not be considered as an offence. Although FIR regarding the First Appeal No. 487 of 2016 6 accident was lodged with the police on the same day i.e. 14.6.2014, however, intimation to the opposite parties was given on 1.7.2014 after delay of 18 days. Therefore, the opposite parties rightly repudiated the insurance claim, vide letter dated 20.1.2016. Learned counsel for the opposite parties relied upon judgment of Hon'ble National Commission passed in Revision Petition No.4043 of 2008 decided on 16.2.2012 (Kaushalendra Kumar Mishra v. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.), and the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2014 (4) RCR (Civil) 272 (Narinder Singh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.). On the point of delayed intimation he referred to the judgment of Hon'ble National Commission in "Devinder Singh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd." reported in III(2003) CPJ 77 (NC), judgment dated 8.11.2010 passed in FA No.321 of 2005 (New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Trilochan Jane), "Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Rohtas Singh" reported in 2012(1)CLT 145, "Budha Ganesh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd." 1(2014) CPJ 422 (NC) and "Parveen Dalal v. Oriental Insurance Company & Ors." 1(2014) CPJ 546 (NC). He also referred to some other judgments of Hon'ble National Commission and Hon'ble Supreme Court mentioned in the grounds of appeal. He prayed that the District Forum has committed the gravest error of law in partly allowing the complaint of the complainant and the impugned order passed by it suffers from illegality and infirmity. He further prayed that this appeal may First Appeal No. 487 of 2016 7 be allowed and the impugned order passed by the District Forum be set aside.
8. Per contra it was argued by the learned counsel for the complainant that non-registration of the vehicle in question after the expiry of the temporary registration was not intentional and deliberate. The same is not material and is not fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The registration or non-registration of the vehicle has no nexus with the cause of accident of the vehicle in question. Moreover, once permanent registration of the vehicle was done on 17.7.2014 after paying the penal fee etc., it relates back from the date of purchase. There is no condition in the insurance policy that registration of the vehicle is a must because the Insurance Company has insured the vehicle on the basis of Engine Number and Chassis Number of the vehicle. It was further argued by the learned counsel for the complainant that if it is presumed that at the time of accident, the car was not registered and it is the violation of terms and conditions of the policy, even then Insurance Company cannot repudiate the claim of the complainant only on this ground. He relied upon the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2004(2) RCR (Civil) 114 (National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh and others), 2010(1) CPC 653 (Amalendu Sahoo v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.), 2008(3) CPC 559 (National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nitin Khandelwal) and 2006(2) CPC 33 (New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. First Appeal No. 487 of 2016 8 Narayan Prasad Appa Prasad). It was further argued that the District Forum has rightly relied upon the aforesaid judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and has passed the well reasoned order. There is no illegality or infirmity in the same and the same is liable to be upheld.
9. We have given thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for both the sides.
10. Admittedly the vehicle was purchased on 27.1.2014 and the same was insured from the opposite parties for the period from 27.1.2014 to 26.1.2015. The temporary registration number of the vehicle was valid for a period of one month i.e. till 26.2.2014. The accident occurred on 14.6.2014 after the expiry of the temporary registration number and the permanent registration number was obtained only on 17.7.2014 almost one month after the date of accident. Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, reads as under:-
"39. Necessity for registration.--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 First Appeal No. 487 of 2016 9 motor vehicle in possession of a dealer subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government."
A perusal of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act, reproduced above, reveals that it is mandatory to get the vehicle registered in accordance with Chapter-IV, before driving the same in any public place or in any other place and the registration mark is required to be displayed on the vehicle in the prescribed manner.
11. Section 43 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, deals with the Temporary Registration of the vehicle, which is to be valid for a period not exceeding one month, and is renewable. The same reads as under:-
43. Temporary registration.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 40 the owner of a motor vehicle may apply to any registering authority or other prescribed authority to have the vehicle temporarily registered in the prescribed manner and for the issue in the prescribed manner of a temporary certificate of registration and a temporary registration mark.
(2) A registration made under this section shall be valid only for a period not exceeding one month, and shall not be renewable:
Provided that where a motor vehicle so registered is a chassis to which a body has not been attached and the same is detained in a workshop beyond the said period of First Appeal No. 487 of 2016 10 one month for being fitted with a body or any unforeseen circumstances beyond the control of the owner], the period may, on payment of such fees, if any, as may be prescribed, be extended by such further period or periods as the registering authority or other prescribed authority, as the case may be, may allow.
(3) In a case where the motor vehicle is held under hire-
purchase agreement, lease or hypothecation, the registering authority or other prescribed authority shall issue a temporary certificate of registration of such vehicle, which shall incorporate legibly and prominently the full name and address of the person with whom such agreement has been entered into by the owner."
A perusal of Section 43 reveals that the temporary registration number will be valid for a period of one month and if not renewed, it lapses.
12. Section 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, reads as under:-
"192. Using vehicle without registration.--(1) Whoever drives a motor vehicle or causes or allows a motor vehicle to be used in contravention of the provisions of section 39 shall be punishable for the first offence with a fine which may extend to five thousand rupees but shall not be less than two thousand rupees for a second or subsequent offence with imprisonment which may extend to one year or with fine First Appeal No. 487 of 2016 11 which may extend to ten thousand rupees but shall not be less than five thousand rupees or with both:
Provided that the Court may, for reasons to be recorded, impose a lesser punishment. (2) Nothing in this section shall apply to the use of a motor vehicle in an emergency for the conveyance of persons suffering from sickness or injuries or for the transport of food or materials to relieve distress or of medical supplies for a like purpose:
Provided that the person using the vehicle reports about the same to the Regional Transport Authority within seven days from the date of such use.
(3) The Court to which an appeal lies from any conviction in respect of an offence of the nature specified in sub-section (1), may set aside or vary any order made by the Court below, notwithstanding that no appeal lies against the conviction in connection with which such order was made."
A perusal of Section 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, makes it clear that any person who drives a motor vehicle or causes or allows a motor vehicle to be used in contravention of the provisions of Section 39 shall be punishable for the first offence with a fine which may extend to five thousand rupees but shall not be less than two thousand rupees for a second or subsequent offence with imprisonment which may extend to one year or with First Appeal No. 487 of 2016 12 fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees but shall not be less than five thousand rupees or with both.
13. In the present case neither the vehicle was got registered permanently during the period for which the temporary registration number was in existence nor the temporary registration number was got extended. Even no application for registration of the vehicle permanently was made to the concerned Registering Authority. However, we want to notice some facts, which are relevant on the basis of which relief may be granted to the consumers in such matters. It is an admitted fact that when the insurance of the vehicle was done, it was done on the basis of engine number and chassis number of the vehicle and the same were duly mentioned in the insurance policy. There was no reference of any temporary registration number of the vehicle. Once a contract is entered into between a consumer and the Insurance Company on the basis of chassis number and engine number of the vehicle and not on the basis of the temporary registration number or permanent registration number, then the Insurance Company cannot escape its liability to pay the insurance claim where the same vehicle having same chassis number and engine number meets with an accident. The registration or non-registration of the vehicle temporarily or permanently has no nexus with the cause of accident of the vehicle in question. The contract of insurance is only based on the utmost good faith, which is applicable to both the parties. In the First Appeal No. 487 of 2016 13 judgments cited at bar this aspect of the matter has not been considered and issue may be decided in an appropriate case. However, the facts in Narinder Singh's case (supra) were that the temporary registration granted in respect of the vehicle had expired before the date of the accident and permanent Registration Certificate had not been obtained. It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that using a vehicle on the road, without registration, is not only an offence punishable under section 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act, but also a fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of the policy. In that case, the District Forum had allowed the complaint and had directed the insurance company to indemnify the complainant to the extent of 75%. Feeling aggrieved, the insurance company filed an appeal before the State Commission, which was allowed and complaint was dismissed. The complainant preferred revision petition before the Hon'ble National Commission, which was dismissed. The orders passed by the State Commission and Hon'ble National Commission were upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The present case is squarely covered by this judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and we are bound by the same. Therefore, the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the complainant need not to be discussed.
14. In view of the discussion held above, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order passed by the District Forum is set aside. First Appeal No. 487 of 2016 14 The complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed with no order as to costs.
15. The appellants had deposited a sum of ₹25,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal. They deposited another sum of ₹95,982/- on 15.11.2016 in compliance of the order dated 18.7.2016. Both these sums along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to appellant-opposite party No.2, as per the undertaking given by the appellants, after the expiry of 45 days of the sending of certified copy of the order to them.
16. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
17. The copies be supplied to the parties in accordance with provisions of law.
(JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL) PRESIDENT (HARCHARAN SINGH GURAM) MEMBER June 02, 2017.
Bansal