National Consumer Disputes Redressal
National Insurance Company Ltd vs Vivek Tiwari on 27 February, 2017
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 1860 OF 2014 (Against the Order dated 03/12/2013 in Appeal No. 355/2009 of the State Commission Rajasthan) 1. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, REGIONAL OFFICE-I, 124 JEEVAN BHARTI BUILDING, CANNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. VIVEK TIWARI S/O MR.ONKAR NATH TIWARI, R/O TALWANDI KOTA RAJASTHAN ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI,PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner : MS. NEERJA SACHDEVA For the Respondent : Mr. Arvind Kr. Garg, Advocate
Dated : 27 Feb 2017 ORDER
PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER
Both these revision petitions arise out of single order of State Commission; hence, decided by common order.
2. These revision petitions have been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 3.12.2013 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (in short, 'the State Commission') in Appeal No. 355/2009 - National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Vivek Tiwari and in Appeal No.433/2009 - Vivek Tiwari Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. by which, appeal of OP was dismissed and appeal of complainant was allowed.
3. Brief facts of the case are that Complainant purchased car and got temporary registration No. RJ-14-IC-265 on 31.5.2003, he got an insurance of his car from OP for a period of one year from 29.05.2003 to 28.5.2004. The car was insured for Rs.5,24,691/- and the accessories of the car were also insured for Rs.64,000/-. His car was robbed and looted, when it was being driven by his uncle Mr. Arvind Tiwari at around 11:00 p.m. to 12:00 midnight on 15.07.2003 on road near Kota Open University. The matter was reported on 16.07.2003 to police station Mahaveer Nagar and the information was also given to the Insurance Company about the incident. The police submitted a final report on 20.12.2003 and a claim was submitted before the Insurance Company, but it was not allowed in Toto and the Insurance Company allowed the claim to the extent of Rs.3,70,775/- on non-standard basis. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP resisted complaint, admitted issuance of policy, but submitted that as complainant inspite of reminders did not submit documents, claim could not be settled earlier. It was further submitted that registration of vehicle was not done as required under Motor Vehicle Act and prior to registration, vehicle was stolen; even then, regional office recommended payment of Rs.3,70,775/-. Denying any deficiency on their part, prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties, allowed complaint and directed OP to pay Rs. 5,89,292/- along with Rs.500/- as compensation and Rs. 500/- as cost of litigation. Both parties filed appeals before State Commission and learned State Commission vide impugned order dismissed appeal of OP, but allowed appeal of complainant and further awarded 9% p.a. interest on aforesaid amount from the date of filing complaint and Rs. 10,000/- as cost against which, these revision petitions have been filed along with application for condonation of delay.
4. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused record.
5. In both revision petitions, petitioner has filed application for condonation of delay of 47 days and submitted that time was consumed in seeking legal opinion and approval from head office for filing revision petition and some time was taken in translation of pleadings, orders and documents which were in Hindi. As there is delay of only 47 days, I deem it appropriate to condone delay subject to payment of cost for the reasons mentioned in the application and application for condonation of delay is allowed and delay stands condoned subject to payment of cost of Rs. 2000/- by petitioner to respondent in each revision petition
6. Learned Counsel for petitioner submitted that as vehicle was being plied on highway without registration which was in violation of terms and conditions of policy, learned State Commission committed error in dismissing appeal of OP and allowing appeal of complainant; hence, revision petitions be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the complainant submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petitions be dismissed.
7. It is not disputed that complainant purchased vehicle on 31.5.2003 and got it insured from OP for a period of one year from 29.05.2003 to 28.5.2004. It is also not disputed that vehicle was looted in midnight of 15.7.2003 and at the time of loot, neither temporary registration of vehicle stood extended, nor complainant obtained permanent registration number of the vehicle. Learned State Commission in para 6 of the impugned order observed that Section 39 of Motor Vehicle Act mandates for registration of motor vehicle from competent registration authority and application for registration be submitted before competent authority within 7 days. Admittedly, complainant has not placed any document on record to show that complainant submitted application before registering authority within prescribed period for registration of vehicle. Temporary registration number were valid only for a month and as per provisions of Section 39 of Motor Vehicle Act, vehicle cannot be plied on road without registration and as Complainant's vehicle was being plied on road without permanent registration or temporary registration, it amounted not only of offence under Section 192 of the Motor Vehicle Act, but also amounted to fundamental breach of terms and conditions of policy. Learned State Commission in para 7 of the impugned order observed that for want of permanent registration, insurance company cannot repudiate or minimize the claim which observation is contrary to law. Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 8463 of 2014 - Narinder Singh Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., in which after considering Amalendu Sahoo's case held that as vehicle was without any registration on the day of alleged accident and nothing was brought on record to show that before or after expiry of temporary registration owner of the vehicle either applied for permanent registration as contemplated under Section 39 of the Act or made any application for extension of period as temporary registration on the ground of some special reasons it amounted not only to offence punishable under Section 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act but also fundamental breach of terms and conditions of policy and order passed by Fora below dismissing claim was upheld.
8. In the case in hand complainant had not placed any evidence on record that after getting vehicle insured he ever applied for extension of temporary registration or applied for permanent registration under Section 39 of the Motor Vehicle Act. In the light of aforesaid judgment, learned District Forum committed error in allowing full claim and learned State Commission further committed error in allowing interest and cost. Strictly speaking, complainant is not entitled to any amount on account of violation of terms and conditions of the policy, but as OP agreed to pay Rs. 3,70,775/-, complaint should be allowed only to that extent.
9. Consequently, R.P. No. 1861 of 2014 filed by petitioner is allowed and impugned order passed in Appeal No. 433 of 2009 - Vivek Tiwari Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. is set aside and R.P. No. 1860 of 2014 filed by petitioner is partly allowed and impugned order dated 3.12.2013 passed in Appeal No. 355/2009 - National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Vivek Tiwari is partly modified and order of District Forum dated 21.1.2009 passed in Complaint No. 232 of 2005 - Vivek Tiwari Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. is partly modified and OP is directed to pay Rs. 3,70,775/- to the complainant within 30 days from today. Parties to bear their costs.
......................J K.S. CHAUDHARI PRESIDING MEMBER