State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs Rajesh Nautiyal on 8 October, 2013
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UTTARAKHAND, DEHRADUN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 182 / 2012
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
Through its Divisional Manager
Divisional Office Ist Floor, 4-B
Sachdeva Colony, Haridwar Road, Dehradun
......Appellant / Opposite Party
Versus
Sh. Rajesh Nautiyal S/o Sh. R.C. Nautiyal
R/o Gandhi Nagar, Nautiyal Complex, Near Blood Bank
Ballupur Road, Dehradun
......Respondent / Complainant
Mr. Suresh Gautam, Learned Counsel for the Appellant
Mr. Aman Rab, Learned Counsel for Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.C. Kandpal, President
Mr. C.C. Pant, Member
Dated: 08/10/2013
ORDER
(Per: Mr. C.C. Pant, Member):
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 07.11.2012 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun, partly allowing the consumer complaint No. 284 of 2011 and directing the opposite party to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 4,23,750/- against damages, Rs. 10,000/- towards cost of litigation, within a month (30 days) from the date of order, failing which the complainant has been held entitled to interest @ 9% per annum on the above amount from the date of filing the consumer complaint till payment.
2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the complainant Sh. Rajesh Nautiyal had purchased a Mahindra & Mahindra Bolero SLXDI/2WD/7STR/(A/C)BSIII from Premier Motors Pvt. Ltd. Haridwar Bi-pass Road, Dehradun on 14.02.2011, which was financed by Punjab 2 National Bank, I.M.A. Branch, Dehradun. The said vehicle was insured with The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. - opposite party for the period from 15.02.2011 to 14.02.2012 at an I.D.V. of Rs. 5,95,758/-. The vehicle was thieved on the mid-night of 11/12.05.2011 from the parking of Gandhi Nagar Colony. An F.I.R. was lodged on 12.05.2011 with the Thana Cantt., Police Station, Bindal and the opposite party was also informed immediately. The complainant put endless efforts to trace out the said vehicle, but the same could not be traced out. The opposite party deputed its investigator for investigation. However, the opposite party repudiated the claim submitted by the complainant on the ground that the vehicle had remained without registration till the date of theft and, thus, the complainant had violated the terms and conditions of the policy. This led the complainant to file a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Dehradun, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice adopted by the opposite party in repudiating his claim on an unjust ground. The District Forum, after an appreciation of the facts of the case, partly allowed the consumer complaint vide its order dated 07.11.2012 in the above manner. Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite party has filed this appeal.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the District Forum has failed to appreciate the evidence on record, which clearly shows that the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy as well as the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The registration number allotted by the Transport Department to a vehicle makes it easily identifiable. Had the vehicle been registered, it would have been easier for the police to trace it out. It was further argued that the vehicle was insured subject to the conditions of the policy and relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. Non-registration of the vehicle was in violation of Section 39 of the Act. In support of his contention, he 3 referred to a judgment and order dated 12.04.2013 passed by the Hon'ble National Commission, New Delhi in "Revision Petition No. 4951 of 2012 Narinder Singh vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors." He also referred a decision of Hon'ble National Commission, Circuit Bench at Bhopal in the case of "Kaushalendra Kumar Mishra vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.; I (2012) CPJ 559 (NC)". Placing reliance on these judgments, the learned counsel submitted that the complainant did not get his vehicle registered with the Transport Department till the date of alleged theft and, thus, he was using the vehicle without registration. Therefore, the learned counsel pleaded that the insurance company has not committed any deficiency in service nor it has adopted any unfair trade practice in repudiating the complainant's claim on the ground of non-registration of the vehicle.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent reiterated the facts of the case and argued in support of the impugned order. In support of his argument, the learned counsel referred to a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Appeal (Civil) No. 3409 of 2008; National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nitin Khandelwal; website: Indian Kanoon- http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1087345/. He also referred to a decision of the Hon'ble National Commission in the case of "Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Smt. Chandrakant Kisan Khatale; (2012) 4 CPR (NC) 196" and "IFFCO TOKIO General Ins. Co. Ltd. vs. Pratima Jha; 2012 (2) CPR 270 (NC)".
6. The facts of the cases cited by the learned counsel for the appellant are slightly different from the instant one. In the case of "Kaushalendra Kumar Mishra" (supra), the motor cycle involved in dispute was snatched away from its owner. The insurance company had repudiated the claim on the ground that the vehicle was being driven by the complainant without a valid licence and also that it was not registered, as required under Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. In the case of "Narinder Singh" (supra), the vehicle had met with an accident. The claim of the complainant was repudiated by the insurance company on the ground that 4 the person, who was driving the vehicle, did not possess a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident and also that the vehicle was not registered. In the instant case, the incident of theft took place in the night, when the vehicle was parked at the parking place. Of course, the vehicle was not registered till the date of incident, but there is no dispute with regard to the driving licence of its owner, as the vehicle was in a parked state and it was not being driven. Therefore, in our view, though the respondent had violated the provisions of Law by not getting his vehicle registered within the stipulated period of time, the violation is not fundamental in nature so far as the incident of theft is concerned. The appellant has admitted that the vehicle was insured comprehensively and, therefore, the District Forum has not erred by holding that the claim should be settled on non-standard basis. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as cited by the respondent above, also supports the view taken by the District Forum. In the case of "Nitin Khadelwal" (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in the case of theft of vehicle, breach of condition is not germane and the insurance company is liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle for the loss, if the vehicle is comprehensively insured by it. The Hon'ble National Commission in the case of "Smt. Chandrakant Kisan Khatale" (supra), relying on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's above cited decision, has also held that in the case of theft of vehicle, breach of condition is not germane and the insurance company is liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle for the loss, if the vehicle is insured comprehensively by it. The insurance company cannot repudiate the claim in toto in case of loss of vehicle due to theft.
7. However, we find that the cost of litigation, as awarded by the District Forum, is on a higher side. We reduce it to Rs. 5,000/-. Similarly, the interest @ 9% per annum on the awarded amount is also on a higher side. A just and reasonable rate of interest would be 7% per annum and, therefore, it is also reduced to 7% per annum. The impugned order is, thus, modifiable accordingly.
58. For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal is partly allowed. The order impugned dated 07.11.2012 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun in consumer complaint No. 284 of 2011 is modified by reducing the cost of litigation to Rs. 5,000/- and the rate of interest on the awarded amount to 7% per annum. Rest of the impugned order is confirmed. No order as to costs.
(C.C. PANT) (JUSTICE B.C. KANDPAL)