State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Sri Sadhan Sarkar on 28 May, 2015
Daily Order STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION WEST BENGAL 11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087 First Appeal No. FA/748/2014 (Arisen out of Order Dated 22/04/2014 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/82/2012 of District Uttar Dinajpur) 1. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Represented by the Branch Manager, Raigunj Branch, P.O. & P.S. - Raigunj, Dist. Uttar Dinajpur. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Sri Sadhan Sarkar S/o Late Akshay Sarkar, Resi: At present at Indira Colony, P.O. & P.S. - Raigunj, Dist. Uttar Dinajpur. ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. DEBASIS BHATTACHARYA PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. JAGANNATH BAG MEMBER For the Appellant: Mr. Debajit Dutta, Advocate For the Respondent: ORDER
Date: 28-05-2015 Sri Debasis Bhattacharya This appeal originates over the Order dated 22-04-2014, passed by the Ld. District Forum, Uttar Dinajpur in C.C. No. 82/2012, whereby the instant complaint case has been allowed on contest. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, the OP thereof has preferred this appeal.
Case of the Complainant, very precisely, is that his insured vehicle bearing no. WB59A/1073 got damaged in an accident on 12-06-2012 for which a claim was lodged with the OP Insurance Company for a sum of Rs. 3,72,135/- along with relevant documents. But, the latter has not settled his claim despite several reminders. Hence, the case.
Case of the OP, on the other hand, is at the time of accident, the aforesaid vehicle had no fitness certificate and due to that reason no damage was considered in favour of the owner of the vehicle by the Insurance Company according to the terms and conditions of the policy as well as the Insurance Act, 1938.
The Ld. District Forum allowed the complaint case on contest directing the OP to pay Rs. 3,00,000/- towards repairing cost of the damaged vehicle together with compensation and litigation cost of Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 1,000/-, respectively.
We are to consider in this appeal whether the impugned order necessitates our intervention over any kind of legal and/or factual lacunae, or not.
Decision with reasons Ld Advocate for the Appellant has submitted that it was a luxury taxi, whose registration and fitness were not renewed, for which there was repudiation. Drawing our attention to the photocopies of Certificate of Registration and Fitness Certificate, he asserted that the validity period of both these vital documents were overdue when the accident took place. Thus, relying upon Sec. 39 and 56 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as also that of the Insurance Act, 1938, he sought to impress upon the fact that by faltering in renewing those documents, the Respondent breached the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. In terms of the policy conditions as laid down in the insurance policy, violation of Motor Vehicles Act is tantamount to breach of policy condition which invariably renders an insurance claim null and void. Therefore, they very rightly repudiated the claim of the Respondent. To the estimation of the Ld. Advocate, he found it totally inexplicable that the Ld. District Forum observed that non-existence of fitness certificate was not vital. He further asserted that only estimate (bill) was filed by the Respondent, and not the final bill(s). It is contended by the Ld. Advocate that unless a damaged vehicle is repaired, there is no question of settlement of a claim. In support of his contention, the Ld. Advocate has referred to a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, reported in 2014 (4) TAC 1 (SC) and three decisions of the Hon'ble National Commission, reported in I (2015) CPJ 384 (NC) and in R.P. Nos. 877 of 2011 and 969 of 2011.
Despite proper service of notice, the Respondent did not turn up. So, the instant appeal was heard ex parte.
There can be no room for any ambiguity as to the fact that without having requisite and valid documents, as prescribed under the statue, one is not allowed to drive a vehicle. Quite naturally, at the material point of time of accident, if it is found that an insured vehicle was running without having valid documents, it construe as a violation of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
In the case in hand, the situation was, however, altogether different. There is no proof that the vehicle was in use when the accident took place. On the contrary, the Surveyor noted in his report dated 25-06-2012 that during spot inspection he learnt that the insured vehicle was standing by the side of the road when a lorry, which was proceeding towards Malda, suddenly went out of control and overturned on its left hand side and damaged the stationary insured vehicle causing severe damages to the specified portions of the vehicle in question. It is evident from the above that at the material point of time, the insured vehicle was not plying on the road, but it was in a stationary condition.
Reliance has been placed upon Sec. 39 and 56 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant to justify their decision. Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 stipulates that, 'No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this Chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner' and Sec. 56 of the said Act entails that, '....a transport vehicle shall not be deemed to be validly registered for the purposes of section 39, unless it carries a certificate of fitness in such form containing such particulars and information as may be prescribed by the Central Government, issued by the prescribed authority'.
A bare reading of these provisions leave no room for any disagreement as to the fact that without having valid Certificate of Registration and/or Certificate of Fitness no one is authorized to drive or permit driving of the vehicle concerned. In other words, if one is found driving a vehicle or permitting its driving despite not having proper and valid Certificate of Registration and/or Certificate of Fitness, it amounts to breach of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, otherwise not, No case is made out by the Appellant to the effect that at the material time of accident the insured vehicle was pressed into service by the Respondent. Rather, materials on record sufficiently prove that it was parked by the side of the road when a Lorry rammed into the same causing severe damage to the vehicle and the independent Surveyor himself remarked in his report that there was no doubt about the genuineness of the accident as well as the claim. Repudiation of a claim is justified when there is material breach of terms and conditions of an Insurance Policy. If one plies a vehicle defying statutory provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, it places the offender on the wrong side of the law. However, insofar as the insured vehicle in question was not running on the road, there can be no question of violation of the law of the land by the Respondent.
Moreover, the Appellant has neither placed before us any such provision of the Insurance Policy to the effect that absence of valid requisite documents viz., certificate of registration, fitness certificate disqualifies one from getting insurance benefit. Needless to say, therefore, there hardly exists any cogent ground to appreciate the decision of the Appellant in this regard.
Further, we cannot be oblivious of the fact that the main purpose of any temporary/permanent registration is to have identification of the vehicle in the records of the Government authorities so as to identify the vehicle, particularly, in case of any motor accident and for tracing the owner of the vehicle, and in this case, the insured vehicle was having a registration number (although its validity expired) affixed on the vehicle, which would lead to the owner and other details as required in law.
As it appears from the Certificate of Registration, the validity period of the said registration certificate in respect of the insured vehicle in question expired on 03-03-2011. Despite this, the Appellant issued the concerned insurance policy in respect of the vehicle in question and the same was valid from 21-08-2011 to 20-08-2012. It goes to show that there is as such no statutory bar to insure a vehicle without having a valid registration certificate. That being the undisputed position, there could not and should not have been any hindrance to settle the claim of the Respondent over emergence of the instant peril. It is highly improper to blow hot and cold with the same breath.
In as far as fitness related issue of the vehicle in question is concerned, in our considered opinion, since the accident took place while the insured vehicle was in an immobile position, it is irrelevant whether it was having a valid fitness certificate or not. A piece of paper cannot avert an accident of a stationary vehicle.
Now coming to the issue of non-submission of final bills/invoices by the Respondent, as raised by the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant, we find it indeed bizarre that he did not bother to explain why the Appellant refrained from deputing their Surveyor to the service centre, who issued the estimate towards repairing charge of the vehicle. In case, the address of the service centre was indeed false, they could have submitted a report by appointing an Investigator for this purpose, but nothing of this sort has been placed before us to support such wild allegation. That apart, we find it quite baffling that although the Respondent clearly mentioned in paragraph 9 of his petition of complaint that M/s Biplab Sarkar, authorized car repairing centre estimated the repairing cost at Rs. 3,71,135/- and thereafter, the Respondent submitted the claim to the office of the Appellant with proper estimate and documents, the Appellant did not utter a single word in their W.V. as regards indulgence of the Respondent in any kind of wrongdoing, viz., production of manufactured document in the form of estimate, as stated in their Memo of Appeal.
The accident took place on 12-06-2012 and the Appellant repudiated the claim of the Respondent vide its letter dated 25-07-2012. The repudiation letter contains the name of only mentions about spot inspection of the damaged vehicle. So, it can reasonably be presumed that the Appellant did not bother to depute Surveyor to the service centre to carry out detail inspection of the damage sustained by the car after dismantling the damaged car. Quite naturally, on the face of undue haste with which the instant claim of the Respondent was repudiated by the Appellant, it left no scope before the Respondent to submit final bills/tax invoices. There can be no disagreement over the fact that to enable the Respondent proceed with the repairing work, presence of Surveyor before dismantling the damaged parts was essential. Without having necessary approval from the side of the Surveyor/Insurance Company, it is futile to expect an Insured to proceed with repairing of the damaged car. Thus, we find that the allegation of the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant in this regard is totally misplaced.
On the face of above, we find no incongruity with the impugned order and as such, we refrain from interfering with the same in any manner.
In the result, the appeal fails.
Hence, ORDERED That the appeal be and the same is dismissed ex parte against the Respondent, but without any order as to costs. The impugned order is hereby affirmed. [HON'BLE MR. DEBASIS BHATTACHARYA] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MR. JAGANNATH BAG] MEMBER