State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Oic Ltd. vs Smt. Tara Devi & Ors. on 21 May, 2009
H H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SHIMLA Appeal No. 312/2008. Date of Decision 21.5.2009. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., through its Branch Manager, Palace Colony Mandi, HP District Mandi., The Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd., through its Manager, Subhash Chowk Palampur, Distt. Kangra. ..Appellants. Versus 1. Smt. Tara Devi widow., 2. Baby Dimple (Minor) D/o., 3. Baby Anita Sharma (Minor) D/o., 4. Baby Sneha (Minor) D/o., 5. Master Aryan (Minor) S/o late Shri Ashwani Kumar S/o Shri Brij Lal all R/o Vill. Machhyal, PO Chalpri, Tehsil Joginder Nagar, Distt. Mandi, HP and respondent Nos. 2 to 5 are being represented through respondent No.1 natural guardian Smt. Tara Devi. .Respondents. Honble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Goel, President. Honble Mrs. Saroj Sharma, Member.
Honble Mr. Chander Shekher Sharma, Member.
Whether Approved for reporting? Yes.
For the Appellants. Mr. Narinder Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondents. Mrs. Kiran Narula, Advocate.
O R D E R:
Justice Arun Kumar Goel (Retd.) President (Oral) When hearing in this case commenced, only ground urged in support of this appeal on behalf of the appellant was, that the District Forum below fell into error while allowing Complaint No. 29/2008 on 16.9.2008 by treating the claim of the respondents on Non Standard Basis. At the time of hearing it was not disputed between the parties that the vehicle was covered under a valid policy of insurance when it met with accident on 9.7.2006, as such other facts are not being noted in detail.
2. However Mr. Sharma forcefully urged that before a vehicle could be plied on road, it is statutorily required that the same should be duly registered,it must possess fitness certificate, route permit alongwith insurance certificate as per provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the rules framed thereunder.
3. At this stage learned counsel for the parties were not at variance, that at the time of its accident, the vehicle was not having a fitness certificate, as such according to Mr. Sharma the vehicle could not have been plied unless for want of certificate from the competent authority under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles, Act, 1988 and the rules framed thereunder.
4. How such cases are to be dealt with had been attending attention of the National Commission. In this behalf we refer to a recent decision of the National Commission in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Sanjeev Kumar, II (2009) CPJ 135 (NC). In this case a passenger car was being used as taxi when it was stolen.
Complaint was lodged before the District Forum. It was allowed by settling the same on non standard basis, and thus payment of 75% of the admissible claim was ordered. Appeal filed by the Insurance Company before the State Commission and its Revision before the National Commission both were dismissed. That being the position, submission urged on behalf of the appellants is hereby rejected.
5. Before parting with this case we may clarify that instead of non standard claim, it should have been dealt as compromised claim, because accident had taken place after 30th June, 2002 when New India Motor Tariff was in force w.e.f. 1.7.2002.
6. At this stage learned counsel for the respondents pointed out that the direction relating to transfer of registration certificate may be modified as it is not possible for her clients to do the needful, since this is a case of total loss of vehicle. This plea though contested by Mr. Sharma, but we feel it needs to be modified. Ordered accordingly. In case registration certificate of the vehicle is in possession of the respondents they shall hand it over in the Divisional Office of the appellants at Mandi. Alternatively they shall provide its duplicate copy in the said office. However direction that the respondents shall get it transferred in favour of the appellants is modified, and now it is ordered that in case the latter wants it to be transferred in their favour, needful will be done by the respondent No.1 at the cost and expense of the appellants as and when a written request is made to her in that behalf. Subject to this limited modification, the order of the District Forum below is upheld, and the appeal stands disposed of.
All interim orders passed from time to time in this appeal shall stand vacated forthwith.
Learned counsel for the appellant has undertaken to collect copy of this order from the Court Secretary free of cost as per rules and office will send the same in the like manner to the respondents.
Shimla.
21st May, 2009. (Justice Arun Kumar Goel) Retd.
Karan* President. (Saroj Sharma) Member. (Chander Shekher Sharma) Member.