State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Dinesh Kumar Dewangan vs Iffco Tokio Gen. Insu. Co. Ltd. on 7 March, 2011
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G)
Appeal No.708/2010
Instituted on : 22/11/2010
Dinesh Kumar Dewangan,
S/o Shri Bishat Lal Dewangan,
R/o : Old Changorabhatha Talab,
Raipur, District Raipur (C.G) .... Appellant
Vs.
IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd.
3rd Floor, Office No.347, Lalganga Shopping Mall,
G.E.Road,
Raipur (C.G) ... Respondent
PRESENT :
HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI S.C. VYAS, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE SMT. VEENA MISRA, MEMBER
HON'BLE SHRI V.K. PATIL, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES :
Shri N.M. Sonkala, for appellant.
Shri P.K. Paul, for respondent.
ORDER (ORAL)
DATED : 07 /03/2011 PER :- HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI S.C. VYAS, PRESIDENT This appeal is directed against the order dated 21/10/2010 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (C.G) (hereinafter called "District Forum" for short) in Complaint Case No.132/2009, whereby the complaint of the appellant herein, against the respondent/Insurance Company, in respect of compensation on account of theft of the insured vehicle, has been dismissed on the ground that the vehicle in question, was being used by the // 2 // complainant without registration for hire or reward, which was violation of terms of the insurance policy and so, nothing can be awarded against the Insurance Company.
2. It is not in dispute that an unregistered vehicle Innova Car, which was purchased by the complainant from authorized dealer on 03/01/2008, was insured by the respondent herein. As per case of the complainant, said vehicle was stolen by someone, when it was parked in front of a Hotel at Korba. Claim was preferred by the complainant before the Insurance Company, which was repudiated by it, on the ground that there was violation of terms of the insurance policy, as well as provisions of Motor Vehicles Act and so no amount, is payable to the complainant.
3. District Forum, agreed with the contention of the Insurance Company and dismissed the complaint.
4. We have heard the arguments advanced by both parties and perused the record of the District Forum.
5. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the vehicle in question, was though purchased on 03/01/2008, but for want of bill and Sale Certificate, Registration Certificate from the Registering Authority, could not be obtained. He submitted that insurance cover was provided by the respondent / Insurance Company from the date of // 3 // purchase of the vehicle and thereafter, the vehicle was stolen by someone on 23/02/2008 when it was used for carrying two persons to Korba (C.G.) and was parked in front of a Hotal at Korba (C.G.). It has been submitted that as per terms of the insurance policy, the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation, on account of loss due to theft of the insured vehicle.
6. Per contra, counsel for the respondent/Insurance Company has drawn our attention towards First Information Report lodged with Police Station, Korba (C.G.) on 28/02/2008, wherein the insured himself has stated that on 23/02/2008 at 5.30 A.M., he booked two persons for travel in the vehicle upto Korba (C.G.) and carried them to a Hotel of Koba (C.G.). There those persons offered some breakfast to him and after consuming some eatables like Curd etc., he became unconscious. Later on when he regained consciousness, then found that key of the vehicle was stolen by someone from his pocket and vehicle was also not there at the parked place and was also stolen by someone.
7. On the basis of this First Information Report, counsel for the respondent submitted that the vehicle in question, was being used for hire or reward contrary to the terms of the insurance policy and it was violation of terms of the insurance policy. He further submitted that no proper care of the insured vehicle, was taken by the complainant // 4 // and it was parked unattended at a public place, as stated by the Investigator of the Insurance Company, in his affidavit. It has also been argued that though vehicle in question was purchased by the complainant on 03/01/2008 and though it's bill and sale letter was provided to him on 01/02/2008, but even then no action was taken by the complainant for getting the vehicle registered and to obtain Fitness Certificate, for the purpose of it's use as a transport vehicle for carrying passengers. He submitted that at the relevant time, the complainant was carrying passengers in the vehicle and was using the vehicle as transport vehicle, though, no such permit for use as transport vehicle and registration certificate, was obtained by him from the Registration Authority nor insurance cover was provided for that purpose. No Fitness Certificate was also granted by the Registering Authority to that effect. The vehicle in question was being plied on road without registration certificate, permit to use as transport vehicle and fitness certificate, and it was gross violation of provisions of Motor Vehicles Act including provisions of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act. This violation disentitles the complainant from getting any benefits under the insurance policy. Moreover the terms of the policy were also violated as the incident was reported to Police after five days and Insurance Company was informed after nine days from the date of incident.
// 5 //
8. We have anxiously asked from the counsel for the complainant/appellant as to why even after receiving sale letter on 1/2/2008 from the dealer and having insurance policy, the complainant has not applied for registration of the vehicle for next 23 days and for obtaining necessary Certificates. He could not assigned any reason for this conduct of the complainant. Thus, it appears that the complainant failed to get Registration Certificate of the vehicle, for a period of more than 23 days without any reasonable cause and thus, violated the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
9. We find that District Forum has also observed correctly that the appellant/complainant is guilty of violating provisions of Motor Vehicles Act including that of Section 39 regarding registration of the vehicle as well as Sections 192 & 192A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. This appears material violation. Apart from it, the vehicle in question, was also used for hire or reward contrary to the terms of the insurance policy and was also parked at a public place unattended as stated by the Investigator of the Insurance Company. The information to Police and insurer was given after lapse of much time without any explaination. In view of this all, if District Forum has dismissed the complaint, then it committed no error.
// 6 //
10. We do not find any substance in this appeal, therefore, the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to the cost of this appeal.
(Justice S.C.Vyas) (Smt. Veena Misra) (V.K. Patil)
President Member Member
/03/2011 /03/2011 /03/2011