State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch ... vs Mohan Lal Son Of Shri Veer Singh, ... on 30 October, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA First Appeal No.856 of 2011 Date of Institution: 22.06.2011 Date of Decision: 30.10.2012 The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch Office, Sirsa through The Regional Manager Regional Office, Jagadhri Road, LIC Building, Ambala Cantt. Appellant (OP) Versus Mohan Lal son of Shri Veer Singh, resident of Village & P.O. Jogiwala Tehsil and District Sirsa. Respondent (Complainant) BEFORE: Honble Mr. Justice R.S. Madan, President. Dr. Rekha Sharma, Member. For the Parties: Shri D.C. Kumar, Advocate for appellant. Shri Ravi Kant, Advocate for respondent. O R D E R
Justice R.S. Madan, President:
Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 16.05.2011 passed by District Consumer Forum, Sirsa in complaint No.153/2009 whereby the complaint of the respondent-complainant was accepted and direction given below were issued to the appellant-opposite party:-
11. The complaint, therefore, succeeds and is partly allowed. The insurance company is directed to make payment of the amount of Rs.37,500/-
with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of repudiation of the claim till realization and costs of Rs.2000/-. The interest to take care of the harassment, mental tension, agony etc caused to the complainant. We direct the respondent insurance company to implement the present order within a period of one month faling which the complainant shall be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the consumer Forum under Section 25/or 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The brief facts of the present case as emerged from the record are that the complainant had purchased Maxx Pick-up vehicle on 15.10.2007 the temporary registration number of which was HR-99AD Temp.1432 valid from 15.10.2007 to 14.11.2007. The vehicle was insured with the appellant-opposite party for the period 13.10.2007 to 12.10.2008. On 23.11.2007 the vehicle damaged in an accident. The claim submitted by the complainant was repudiated by the opposite party on the ground that the complainant had not obtained the Fitness Certificate of the vehicle as required under Section 56 of the Motor Vehicle Act whereas the commercial vehicle could not be plied on the road without obtaining the Fitness Certificate. At the time of accident, the vehicle was being used for commercial purpose i.e. for carrying transformer diesel for Hutch Mobile Company whereas the vehicle was insured with the opposite party for private use. The vehicle met with an accident on 23.11.2007 and the permanent Registration Certificate of the vehicle was prepared on 10.01.2008 whereas the vehicle was in the workshop of M/s Garg Motors Sirsa from 26.11.2007 to 15.2.2008. Challenging the repudiation of his claim, the complainant filed complaint before the District Consumer Forum which was contested by the opposite party on the above stated ground. District Consumer Forum accepted complaint by relying upon the judgment of Honble Supreme Court cited as Amalendu Sahoo vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited 2010 CTJ 485 (Supreme Court) (CP).
Aggrieved against the order of the District Consumer Forum, the opposite party has come up in appeal.
Arguments heard. File perused.
Admittedly, the vehicle was purchased on 15.10.2007 and the temporary registration number of the vehicle was valid upto 14.11.2007. The accident occurred on 23.11.2007 and the permanent registration certificate was issued on 10.01.2008. There is nothing on the record to establish that the complainant had applied to the concerned Registration Authority within 30 days from the date of its purchase. It has also come on the record that the Fitness Certificate of the vehicle was issued on 10.01.2008. Meaning thereby on the date of accident the complainant had neither obtained permanent registration number of the vehicle nor the Fitness Certificate. Thus, there was violation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act for not obtaining the Fitness Certificate as well as the Registration Certificate of the vehicle by the complainant.
Similar controversy had arisen before this Commission in First Appeal No.3345/2007, titled as Oriental Insurance Company vs. Dharam Singh, decided on 10.09.2012, wherein the repudiation of complainants claim was held justified. The relevant portion of Dharam Singhs case (Supra) is as under:-
It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Fitness Certificate of a vehicle is mandatory requirement to ply the vehicle on the road as per the provisions of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicle Act and since the complainant had not obtained the Fitness Certificate of his three wheeler after 03.12.2004, the complainant was not entitled for any insurable benefits as the vehicle was stolen on 03.12.2005 i.e. on the date when the vehicle was without Fitness Certificate.
We find force in the contention raised on behalf of the appellant in view of the judgment rendered by Honble National Consumer Commission cited as UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. versus TRILOK KAUSHIK, IV(2010) CPJ 321 (NC) wherein it has been held that:-
9. Section 38 of the Motor Vehicle Act, deals with certificate of the fitness of the transport vehicles which reads as under:-
38. Certificate of fitness of transport vehicles (1) subject to the provisions of Section 39, a transport vehicle shall not be deemed to be validly registered for the purposes of Section 22, unless it carries a certificate of fitness in Form H as set forth in First Schedule, issued by the prescribed authority, to the effect that the vehicle complies for the time being with all the requirements of Chapter V and the rules made thereunder. Where the prescribed authority refuses to issue such certificate, it shall supply the owner of the vehicle with its reasons in writing for such refusal.
10. From the above, it is clear that a transport vehicle shall not be deemed to be validly registered for the purpose of Section 22 of the Motor Vehicles Act, unless it carries a certificate of fitness. The vehicle in question did not have a fitness certificate on the date of the accident and as such the vehicle in question is deemed to be not validly registered. For the breach of these provisions, penal provision is contained in Section 123 of the act..
It has been clearly held in the above cited judgment in TRILOK KAUSHIKs case (Supra) that the fitness of transport vehicles is necessary as per the provisions of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicle Act and if the vehicle is without Fitness Certificate, then a transport vehicle shall not be deemed to be validly registered.
The facts of the instant case are fully attracted to TRILOK KAUSHIKs case (Supra). Thus, as the three wheeler of the complainant was without Fitness Certificate on the date of its theft, therefore it has to be presumed that the vehicle was not validly registered with the Registration Authority. Meaning thereby, the complainant has violated the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act as well as the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. Hence, the complainant is not entitled for any insurable benefits in view of the following judgments:
Honble Supreme Court in case law cited as UNITED India INSURANCE CO. LTD. versus HARCHAND RAI CHANDAN LAL, (2004) 8 Supreme Court Cases 644, has held that:-
Held, the terms of the policy shall govern the contract between the parties and they have to abide by the definition given therein, and all those expressions appearing in the policy have to be construed as it is and something cannot be added, subtracted or substituted The observation made by the Honble Apex Court in case cited as SURAJ MAL RAM NIWAS OIL MILLS (P) LTD. versus UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY & ANR, IV(2010) CPJ 38 (S.C.) are as under:-
22. Before embarking on an examination of the correctness of the grounds of repudiation of the policy, it would be apposite to examine the nature of a contract of insurance. It is trite that in a contract of insurance, the rights and obligations are governed by the terms of the said contract. Therefore, the terms of a contract of insurance have to be strictly construed, and no exception can be made on the ground of equity.
24. Thus, it needs little emphasis that in construing the terms of a contract of insurance, the words used therein must be given paramount important, and it is not open for the Court to add, delete or substitute any words. It is also well settled that since upon issuance of an insurance policy, the insurer undertakes to indemnify the loss suffered by the insured on account of risk covered by the policy, its terms have to be strictly construed to determine the extent of liability of the insurer. Therefore, the endeavour of the court should always be to interpret the words in which the contract is expressed by the parties.
This case is fully covered by HARCHAND RAI CHANDAN LALs case (Supra) and Suraj Mal Ram Niwas Oil Mills (P) Ltd case (Supra). Hence, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
So far as the non-registration of the vehicle with the Registration Authority for obtaining permanent registration number of the vehicle is concerned, it has come on the record that the vehicle was purchased on 15.10.2007, the temporary registration of the vehicle was valid upto 14.11.2007 and the accident occurred on 23.11.2007. The permanent registration certificate was issued on 10.01.2008. Meaning thereby, on the date of accident, the vehicle was not registered with the concerned Registration Authority. There is no evidence on the record that the complainant had applied for obtaining the permanent registration number of the vehicle within the prescribed period of 30 days from its purchase. Thus, there is violation of the provisions of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. In a similar situated controversy in First Appeal No.1348 of 2010, titled as Chander Bhan Versus Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. decided on 10.10.2012 the Insurance Company was held justified for repudiating complainants claim with the following observation:-
Thus, there was violation of the provisions of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which says that the registration of the vehicle is mandatory requirement of the law to drive the vehicle on any public place or in any other place. Reference in this regard is made to case law cited as 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 This case is fully covered by KAUSHALENDRA KUMAR MISHRAs case (Supra). Since the complainant failed to get his vehicle registered for a period of three months from the date of its purchase, there was violation of the provisions of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It is well settled law that the complainant cannot be granted any relief against the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act as well as the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. Thus, no case for interference in the impugned order is made out. District Forum has rightly dismissed the complaint.
Thus by following the principle laid down in the cases cited above, we hold that the appellant opposite party was justified in repudiating complainants claim as the complainant violated the provision of the Motor Vehicle Act as well as the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. Thus, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is accepted, the impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.
The statutory amount of Rs.18,750/-
deposited at the time of filing the appeal 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 30.10.2012 President Dr. Rekha Sharma Member