State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Amarjeet on 19 May, 2015
FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.859 of 2013
Date of Institution: 12.08.2013.
Date of Decision: 19.05.2015.
1. National Insurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office, Leela
Bhawan, Patiala, through its Divisional Manager.
2. National Insurance Company Ltd., Regional Office 1, SCO
no.332-334, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh, through its Regional
Manager.
.....Appellants/opposite parties
Versus
Amarjeet Singh S/o Gurnam Singh, R/o Village Ghabdan, Tehsil and
District Sangrur.
.....Respondent/complainant
First appeal against order dated
05.07.2013 passed by the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal
Forum, Patiala.
Quorum:-
Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.
Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member.
Shri H.S. Guram, Member.
Present:-
For the appellants : Sh. Rajesh Verma, Advocate
For the respondent : Sh. Abhishek Goyal, Advocate
.............................................. J. S. KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER:-
The appellants of this appeal (the opposite parties in the complaint) have directed this appeal against the respondent herein First Appeal No.859 of 2013 2 (the complainant in the complaint), challenging order dated 05.07.2013 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Patiala (in short, "the District Forum"), accepting the complaint of the complainant by directing the OPs to pay the payment of Rs.6,17,500/- to the complainant alongwith interest @8% p.a. from the date of repudiation of claim till its realization and further directing to pay Rs.3500/-as costs of litigation. The instant appeal has been preferred against the same by the OPs, now appellants.
2. The complainant has filed the complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short "Act") against the OPs on the averments that he got his Mohindra Bolero Car (Model 2011, chassis number B-5D-72253, engine no.B-4D-40947) insured for a sum of Rs.6,17,500/- from OP no.1 on 21.04.2012, vide cover note no.401011021081 for the period from 21.04.2011 to 20.04.2012 by paying the premium of Rs.17,974/-. The car of the complainant was fully insured. The complainant purchased the above mentioned car from Raj Vehicles Patiala, which got the insurance cover for the car of the complainant from OP no.1 at Patiala. Only insurance cover was supplied to the complainant and insurance policy alongwith terms and conditions were never supplied by the OPs to the complainant. On the intervening night of 18/19.09.2011, the above- said car was stolen from Mohali and an application dated 19.09.2011 was moved to SHO P.S. Mohali. FIR no.58 dated 13.09.2011 was First Appeal No.859 of 2013 3 recorded regarding the theft of the car. The complainant intimated the OPs regarding the theft of the said vehicle and submitted all the documents, as demanded by the OPs. The OPs lingered on the matter on the one pretext or the other. The complainant was surprised to receive letter dated 04.09.2012 from the OPs, stating that they were unable to consider the insurance claim of the complainant, in as such as, the vehicle was purchased on 21.04.2011, vide temporary registration number PB-11-AR(T)-5499 and the said vehicle was stolen on 19.09.2011 and the same was unregistered at the time of theft, which is fundamental violation of Motor Vehicles Act. The complainant alleged unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The complainant has filed the complaint, directing the OPs to pay the full amount of IDV i.e. Rs.6,17,500/- of the vehicle alongwith interest @18% from 19.09.2011. The complainant further prayed that OPs be directed to pay the compensation of Rs.30,000/- for mental harassment and Rs.5500/- costs of litigation.
3. Upon notice, OP nos.1 and 2 appeared and filed joint written reply raising preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable, in as such as, the insurance claim of the complainant was repudiated by the OP, because the insured vehicle was not registered under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act at the time of its loss. The insurance is a contract of indemnity and it has been First Appeal No.859 of 2013 4 viewed as a normal contract as per the Indian Contract Act. Any violation of the insurance contract by the parties to the contract of insurance, renders the contract as void. It was admitted that the vehicle was insured with OP no.1 for a sum of Rs.6,17,500/- by OPs. The OPs pleaded only this fact that when the car was stolen, it was not registered and hence being the violation of Motor Vehicles Act, no insurance claim is admissible to the complainant. The OPs prayed for the dismissal of the complaint of the complainant.
4. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 alongwith documents Ex.C-2 to C-11 and closed the evidence. As against it, the OPs tendered in evidence the affidavit of Jaspal Singh, Sr.Manager Ex.OP-A and affidavit of M.K. Chadha Investigator Ex.OP-B alongwith documents Ex.OP-1 to OP-9 and closed the evidence. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum Patiala accepted the complaint of the complainant, as stated above. Dissatisfied with the above order, the OPs, now appellants have preferred this appeal against the same.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also examined the record of the case. The short point is involved in this appeal for adjudication before us, as to whether repudiation of the insurance claim by the OPs, is justified or not. There is no dispute between the parties about this fact that the complainant purchased the above referred Mahindra Bolero Car and got it First Appeal No.859 of 2013 5 insured with OP no.1 for the 21.04.2011 to 20.04.2011, against premium of Rs.17,974/-. The dispute arose simply on this point, when the OPs repudiated the insurance contract on the ground that on 18/19 September, 2011, when the above referred vehicle was stolen, it was not registered with the registering authority under the Motor Vehicles Act. The complainant purchased the vehicle on 21.04.2011, vide temporary registration number PB-11-AR(T)-5499 and it was stolen on 19.09.2011 and it was unregistered at the time of theft, which is clear violation of Motor Vehicles Act. We have to determine this point as to whether the vehicle was registered at the time of theft or if it was not registered, then what is its effect on the contract of insurance in this case. We have gone through the affidavit of complainant Ex.C-A on the record. Ex.C-1 is the copy of insurance cover. Ex.C-2 is letter dated 04.09.2012 by the OPs to the effect that no reply is received from the complainant within stipulated time and hence the OPs would go ahead to repudiate the insurance claim of the complainant, as the vehicle being unregistered at the time of theft, is clear violation of Motor Vehicles Act. Ex.C-3 is the letter of Amarjeet Singh to the Regional Manager of Insurance company OP no.2. It is stated by the complainant that non- registration of vehicle is neither a breach of policy, nor it is a valid reason for repudiation of the genuine claim of the complainant. Ex.C-5 is letter to the complainant by the OPs that reply of the complainant has been found unsatisfactory and does not provide any First Appeal No.859 of 2013 6 information contrary to the observations of the OPs. Ex.C-6 is the sale certificate in the name of the complainant proving that the vehicle was purchased on 22.04.2011. Ex.C-7 is letter dated 19.09.2011 by Satinderpal Singh to SHO police station Phase-8, Mohali regarding the theft of said vehicle. The police report of FIR no.58 dated 13.09.2011 is Ex.C-8, sending the case untraced under Section 173 of Cr.PC. Ex.C-9 is the temporary certificate of registration, proving that it was issued on 21.04.2011 and was valid upto 20.05.2011. It is, thus, evident from perusal of temporary certificate Ex.C-9 that the vehicle was temporarily registered and was valid uptil 20.05.2011. Beyond 20.05.2011, there was no registration of the vehicle with the Registering Authority by the complainant on the record. The affidavit of Jaspal Singh, Sr. Divisional Manager of OPs Ex.OP-A is on the record to the effect that vehicle was not registered with the Registering Authority at the time of its theft in this case. The vehicle carried temporary registration certificate only, which was valid for the period of one month only. The contract of indemnity thus becomes void when there is any such event of fundamental breach of the contract, the insurance company would not be liable. This fact is not disputed by Jaspal Singh in his affidavit, as referred that vehicle was duly insured with the OPs. The OPs deputed investigator and he investigated the matter and submitted his report dated 06.10.2011. He stated in his affidavit that the theft of the vehicle took place and it was not First Appeal No.859 of 2013 7 registered with the Registering Authority at the time of its theft. The temporary registration number expired on 20.05.2011 of the stolen vehicle. We have examined the documents, the investigation report dated 06.10.2011 Ex.OP-1, Ex.OP-2, the motor claim form, Ex.OP-3 is the repudiated letter. Ex.OP-4 is the registration certificate to the effect that the vehicle was registered on 04.07.2012 in the name of complainant. It is, thus, evident from perusal of record that on 18/19 September, 2011, the vehicle was not registered with any Registering Authority. The registration certificate Ex.OP-4 has proved that it has been actually registered on 04.07.2012. We have, thus, come to this conclusion from perusal of Ex.OP-4 as well as the temporary registration certificate Ex.C-9, that the vehicle at the time of theft was not registered with any Registering Authority under the Motor Vehicles Act. The counsel for the complainant referred to law laid down in "IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pratima Jha" revision petition no.171 of 2012, decided on 27.04.2012 by the National Commission that there is nothing in the insurance policy, which could exonerate the insurance company from its liability on the ground of non-registration of the vehicle. The matter has been, of late, examined by the Apex Court in "Narinder Singh Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. and others"
reported in 2012(4)CLT-1 wherein it has been held that the contract of insurance stands repudiated on the ground that vehicle was not registered even after the expiry of the temporary registration. Vehicle First Appeal No.859 of 2013 8 met with an accident after expiry of temporary registration. Whether the appellant is entitled to claim compensation in respect of vehicle. It was held by Apex Court that using a vehicle on the public road without any registration certificate 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 policy contract. The Apex Court has finally settled the point in this authority that non- registration of vehicle and its use on public road in such state of affairs is not only an offence punishable under Section 192 of Motor Vehicles Act, but is also a fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Once the Apex Court has peremptorily held in this authority that non-registration of the vehicle after expiry of temporary registration certificate is fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of the policy contract, therefore, the OPs are justified in repudiating the contract of insurance in this case. Even from perusal of application to SHO Ex.C-7, it is recorded that vehicle was stolen from outside the Flat no.1256, Sector 68 Mohali. At the time of theft, the non-registration of vehicle is fundamental breach of the insurance policy, as such the OPs are justified in repudiating the contract of insurance on this point. The law laid down by Apex Court would prevail in this case over the law laid down in case "IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pratima Jha" (Supra), as per mandate of Article 141 of Constitution of India.First Appeal No.859 of 2013 9
6. As a result of our above discussion, we hold that the order of the District Forum is unsustainable in this appeal. Resultantly, the appeal is accepted by setting aside the order of District Forum Patiala dated 05.07.2013. We hereby dismiss the complaint of the complainant without any order as to costs.
7. The appellant had deposited the amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal. This amount with interest, which accrued thereupon, if any, be remitted by the registry to appellant no.2 by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days.
8. Arguments in this appeal were heard on 13.05.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(J. S. KLAR) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (VINOD KUMAR GUPTA) MEMBER (H.S. GURAM) MEMBER May 19, 2015.
(MM)