National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Hdfc Chubb General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Ila Gupta And Ors. on 14 December, 2006
Equivalent citations: I(2007)CPJ274(NC)
ORDER
Rajyalakshmi Rao, Presiding Member
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. In this complaint, the complainant purchased a new Daimler Chrysler Mercedez car for a sum of Rs. 23,43,747 and insured the same with the petitioner Insurance Company. He had taken a Temporary Registration Certificate which was valid for a month and later on it was validated for another one month. The car fell into a pot-hole incidentally in a flooded road and got damaged. It was repaired by M/s. Cama Motors and the complainant claimed for recovery of the repair and parking charges. The petitioner Insurance Company repudiated the claim on the ground that the vehicle did not have Permanent Registration Number and that the vehicle should not have been plied on the road as per the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. There is no controversy regarding the above facts by both the parties. The question is that while issuing the cover note and the policy, it has been mentioned in the relevant column for Registration that the Registration has been applied for. The policy also indicates the brand and Model No., the Chassis No. and the year of manufacturing etc. The entire description of the vehicle was given, only the Registration Number has been shown as the Temporary Registration Number.
2. As far as getting a Permanent Registration Number is concerned, admittedly, for want of a good Registration Number, more time was taken and the respondent got it registered later. In the present case, non-registration of the Vehicle did not lead to this accident. It was just a damage arising out of a car falling into the pothole. It is not the case of the petitioner that they were not aware of the car being registered under the Temporary Registration Number while the policy was issued. An amount of Rs. 81,476 was paid as a premium for getting the car comprehensively insured. As it was very much within the knowledge of the petitioner Insurance Comp any that the policy could not continue to be valid due to non-provision of the Permanent Registration Number, they should have cancelled the policy in order to make the respondent take another policy or revalidate the same according to the policy conditions or whatever that was required to be done. This has not been done by the petitioner Insurance Company.
3. The premium amount is not a meagre amount and the services that should have been rendered by the petitioner are not sufficient enough for the respondent to bring it within his knowledge that there is a lapse on his part. On such flimsy grounds, the petitioner Insurance Company cannot repudiate the claim. If they were sostrict about the said conditions, knowing fully well that the Temporary Registration Number has not been made permanent, they should have brought it into the knowledge of the respondent and cancelled the policy within a reasonable time, which has not been done. Taking hefty premium of Rs. 81,476 from the respondent and thereafter repudiating the claim on flimsy grounds is not justifiable.
4. There is nothing new that has been brought on record for us to admit this matter. There is no reason for us to interfere with a well-reasoned order of the State Commission. Hence, this Revision Petition is dismissed.