State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
National Insurance Company Limited vs M/S Sehgal Medical Agencies on 31 May, 2012
2nd Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.1618 of 2007.
Date of Institution: 17.12.2007.
Date of Decision: 31.05.2012.
National Insurance Company Limited, having its Regional Office at SCO 332-
334, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh through Sh. S.L. Rikhi, Manager, duly
Constituted Attorney.
.....Appellant.
Versus
M/s Sehgal Medical Agencies, 3-F, Dilkusha Market, Jalandhar through its
Prop. Sh. Narinder Kumar Sehgal.
...Respondent.
First Appeal against the order dated
25.10.2007 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar.
Before:-
Shri Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Member.
Shri Piare Lal Garg, Member.
Present:- Sh. Parminder Singh, Advocate, proxy for Sh. Paul S. Saini, Advocate, counsel for the appellant.
None for the respondent.
----------------------------------------
INDERJIT KAUSHIK, PRESIDING MEMBER:-
National Insurance Company Limited, appellant (In short "the appellant") has filed this appeal against the order dated 25.10.2007 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar (in short "the District Forum").
2. Facts in brief are that M/s Sehgal Medical Agencies, respondent/ complainant (hereinafter called as "the respondent") filed a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the respondent, making the averments that it purchased Active (SCV 100 P) Frame No.ME4JF087C58022186, engine no.JF 08E8022217 from one of the dealers of G.S. Honda, Football Chowk, First Appeal No. 1618 of 2007 2 Jalandhar vide invoice no.051N00247 dated 19.04.2005 for a sum of Rs.36,336/-. Temporary registration certificate was issued and the vehicle was insured by the appellant vide policy no. 401112/31/05/6200000265, certificate no. 401112/31/05/6200000265. The period of insurance was from 18.04.2005 to 17.04.2006.
3. During the period of insurance, the vehicle in question of the respondent was stolen when it was parked in front of the shop-cum-office of the respondent on 08.04.2006. In the night, the respondent came to know that the vehicle was missing and was stolen by somebody and intimation was given to the appellant on 10.04.2006 as well as to the police. As the nature of the offence was the same, the theft was included in FIR No.85 dated 01.04.2006.
4. The respondent approached the appellant and asked to pay the claim against the theft of said vehicle and appellant asked for 'untraced report' from the police. The untraced report is dated 01.10.2006 and all other formalities were completed and the respondent kept on visiting the office of the appellant for the claim, but on 01.02.2007, the respondent received a letter no.852/2007 issued by the appellant, intimating that his claim has been closed as 'no claim', as the documents were not supplied. The reply of the same was also given. There was clear-cut deficiency in service on the part of the appellant. Legal notice dated 03.04.2007 was served upon the appellant.
5. It was prayed that the appellant be directed to pay claim amount along with interest and to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation along with costs.
6. In the written reply filed on behalf of the appellant, preliminary objections were taken that the vehicle in question was being plied in violation of the Motor Vehicles Act and the complaint is not maintainable. The vehicle was purchased on 19.04.2005 and the temporary registration certificate was issued which was valid for one month i.e. 18.04.2005 to 17.05.2005 but thereafter, the vehicle was not registered and it is violation of the Motor Vehicles Act. The respondent is estopped by itsown act and conduct from First Appeal No. 1618 of 2007 3 filing the complaint as the alleged theft took place on 09.04.2006, whereas the theft is alleged to have been included in FIR no.85 dated 01.04.2006, but it is not part of the said FIR. Wrong engine number and chassis number were given in the 'Non-traceable certificate' and the numbers differ from the numbers in the insurance policy. The respondent failed to supply the complete documents as required by the appellant for processing of the claim and the claim was repudiated. The vehicle was being used for commercial purpose and the complaint is not maintainable.
7. On merits, the purchase of Activa scooter on 19.04.2005 by the respondent was admitted. It was also admitted that vehicle bearing chassis no.022186, engine no.022217 was insured for the period 18.04.2005 to 17.04.2006. Other similar pleas as taken in preliminary objections were repeated and denying allegations of the complaint, it was prayed that the compliant may be dismissed.
8. Parties led evidence in support of their respective contentions by way of affidavits and documents.
9. After going through the documents and material placed on file and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned District Forum observed that the respondent intimated the police regarding the theft and if the police had not recorded the separate FIR, it is not the fault of the respondent. The appellant has not appointed any surveyor to check veracity of theft. Now, such objections cannot be raised and the ground of rejection of the claim by the appellant that no FIR is lodged, is without any basis. There was no violation of the policy conditions Ex.C-1 and all necessary formalities were completed and the appellant wrongly repudiated the claim vide letter Ex.C-6 dated 01.02.2007. The complaint was allowed and the appellant was directed to pay total insured amount with 9% interest from the date of lodging of claim till realization and Rs.2000/- as costs.
10. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 25.10.2007, the appellant has come up in appeal.
First Appeal No. 1618 of 2007 4
11. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, perused the record of the learned District Forum and have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant.
12. Neither the counsel for the respondent nor anybody else on behalf of the respondent appeared at the time of arguments.
13. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that the insured vehicle was being plied on the road by the insured without obtaining the registration number and the temporary registration number was valid for one month only from 19.04.2005. The theft is stated to have taken place on 08.04.2006 and for about one year, no registration certificate was obtained and the respondent has played a fraud upon the appellant and, as such, no claim is payable. The District Forum has not taken into consideration all these facts and has passed the order which is totally illegal. It was further contended that the chassis number and engine number mentioned in the insurance policy do not tally with the engine number and chassis number of the stolen vehicle. The respondent never informed the appellant about the mistake in the numbers mentioned in the cover note. In these circumstances, the appellant is not liable to pay any claim. The FIR was no.85 dated 01.04.2006, whereas the theft of the vehicle took place on 08.04.2006, as such, this matter could not be investigated and for that, separate FIR should have been recorded. The District Forum has passed a wrong order. Complicated questions of law and facts are involved and the District Forum should have not decided the complaint and the appeal may be accepted and the impugned order may be set aside.
14. We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and have carefully examined the entire record.
15. The respondent reported the matter to the police and this case was attached with FIR Ex.C-7, bearing no.85 dated 01.04.2006, P.S. Divn. No.4, District Jalandhar and report regarding this was made vide Ex.C-8. Thus, the argument that the FIR was registered on 01.04.2006, whereas the First Appeal No. 1618 of 2007 5 intimation of theft was given on 10.04.2006, does not cut much ice because the investigation of theft of the vehicle in question of the respondent was to be conducted along with FIR No.85 dated 01.04.2006, as that FIR was also regarding the theft of vehicle. No benefit of the same can be given to the appellant insurance company, because two or more offences can be clubbed by the police and investigated if it pertains to similar matter.
16. The next argument raised is regarding temporary registration number. At the time of occurrence of theft, the vehicle was bearing temporary registration number and for about one year, the respondent had not applied for permanent registration number before the Motor Vehicles Authorities. This tantamounts to violation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and not of the terms and conditions of the policy in question. It was for the authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act to comply with the provisions of Section-39 as well as Section-44 of the Motor Vehicles Act and violation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act cannot exonerate the appellant from denying the benefit to the respondent. Hon'ble National Commission in case "G. Kothainachiar Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.", IV (2007) CPJ- 34(NC) held that if the conditions of the insurance policy are violated, repudiation would be legal and valid, but if the statutory provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act are violated, the authority under that Act has the right to punish the violator, but the insurer has no right to repudiate the claim.
17. In another case "HDFC Chubb General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Ila Gupta & Ors.", I(2007) CPJ-274(NC), the Hon'ble National Commission did not accept the plea that the vehicle was not having permanent registration number and allowed the claim.
18. In view of above discussion and the law laid down, the impugned order is legal and valid and there is no ground to interfere with the same.
First Appeal No. 1618 of 2007 6
19. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and the impugned order under appeal dated 25.10.2007 passed by the District Forum is affirmed and upheld. No order as to costs.
20. The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs.20,705/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the respondent/complainant 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.
21. Remaining amount as per order of the District Forum shall be paid by the appellant to the respondent/complainant within two months of the receipt of copy of the order.
22. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 24.05.2012 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
23. The appeal could not be decided within the stipulated timeframe due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(Inderjit Kaushik) Presiding Member (Piare Lal Garg) Member May 31, 2012.
(Gurmeet S)