State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Smt. Paramjeet Kaur vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd., on 8 January, 2008
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND
DEHRA DUN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 365 / 2007
Smt. Paramjeet Kaur W/o late Sh. Kulvinder Singh
R/o 119, H.I.G., Indirapuram Colony, Dehradun.
......Appellant
Versus
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
through Branch Manager, Branch Office,
Subhash Road, Dehradun.
.....Respondent
Sh. J.S. Aswal, Learned Counsel for the Appellant
Sh. Manoj Kohli, Learned Counsel for Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Justice Irshad Hussain, President
C.C. Pant, Member
Dated: 08/01/2008
ORDER
(Per: C.C. Pant, Member):
This appeal is directed against the order dated 01.10.2007 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Dehradun in consumer complaint No. 32 of 2004; Smt. Paramjeet Kaur Vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., whereby the complaint of the complainant was dismissed.
2. The facts of the case in brief are that the complainant - appellant's husband had purchased a Yamaha motorcycle on 10.12.1999, but he had not got it registered with the transport department under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. However, he got the vehicle insured with the respondent - insurer under the policy cover note No. 451700 dated 06.08.2002 for a risk of Rs. 30,000/- in case of damage and for a risk of Rs. 1,00,000/- in case of personal accident. This policy was effective for the period from 2 06.08.2002 to 05.08.2003. On 17.10.2002, the motorcycle in question met with an accident and got damaged. The owner, who was driving it, also received fatal injuries and he was hospitalized immediately, but he died in the hospital on 23.10.2002. The deceased's wife - appellant preferred a claim of Rs. 7,980/- against repair of the damaged vehicle and Rs. 1,00,000/- against the risk covered under the policy for personal accident. However, the claim was repudiated by the respondent on 10.10.2003 on the following grounds:
"(1) The vehicle for which claim has been lodged was not registered before the registering authority. No vehicle can be plied on road without getting it registered.
(2) The company can entertain the claim only if the vehicle is registered. Since the vehicle in question was not registered and your husband was not the registered owner of the vehicle and hence claim is not entertainable. (3) The terms and conditions of policy as well as provision of Motor Vehicle Act have been violated and on that ground also the claim is not entertainable."
3. On receiving the repudiation letter from the respondent, the appellant filed a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Forum, Dehradun, which was dismissed by the impugned order. Hence this appeal has been filed by the complainant - appellant.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the material placed on record.
5. Appellant's main contention is that when the respondent - insurer had insured the vehicle and had issued a cover note in that regard, it cannot repudiate the claim on the ground that the vehicle was not registered. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that registration or non-registration of the vehicle did not lead to the 3 accident. The cause of the accident was hitting of the motorcycle with a scooter, in which the motorcycle got damaged and the owner of the vehicle sustained fatal injuries, which ultimately caused his death in hospital. Learned counsel placed reliance on a judgment of the Hon'ble National Commission in the case of HDFC Chubb General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ila Gupta and others; I (2007) CPJ 274 (NC). In the said case, the complainant had purchased a new Daimler Chrysler Mercedez car for a sum of Rs. 23,43,747/- with a temporary registration certificate. The registration certificate was valid for one month and later on, it was validated for another one month. The car was insured and in the cover note of the policy under the column for registration, it was mentioned that the registration has been applied for. The car fell into a pot-hole in a flooded road and got damaged. When the claim was lodged for the repairing of the car, it was repudiated by the insurer on the ground that the vehicle did not have permanent registration number. The Hon'ble National Commission observed that the owner of the car had applied for the registration, which may take time. Moreover, it was very much within the knowledge of the insurance company that the policy could not continue to be valid due to non-provision of the permanent registration number. It was also observed by the Hon'ble National Commission that the insurer should have cancelled the policy in order to make the respondent take another policy or revalidate the same according to the policy conditions or whatever that was required to be done.
6. In our opinion, the case of the appellant cannot be compared with Ila's Gupta case (supra) for the reason that in the instant case, the vehicle was not registered after its so-called purchase in 1999. Even the purchase invoice / receipt according to the complainant had been lost. No attempt was made to produce the secondary evidence of 4 purchase of the vehicle from either the dealer or its previous owner. In Ila's Gupta case (supra), the car was temporarily registered from day one of its purchase and allotment of a permanent registration number was in waiting.
7. There is nothing to indicate that the insurance company had in fact ever issued insurance policy on the basis of the cover note. We also feel that there is something dubious in issuing the cover note of the policy. For example-
(i) The column for registration number of the vehicle has been left blank.
(ii) Chassis number and engine number of the vehicle are same, i.e., 028116, which is generally not possible.
(iii) On the right corner of the top of the cover note, the
words and figures "At: Dehradun" and
"Date: 06.08.2002" appear to be in a different handwriting.
(iv) On the left corner of the bottom, "Date of issue" has been left blank.
8. Generally, when an accident claim is lodged, insurance companies get it investigated through a duly appointed investigator / surveyor, who also assesses the actual loss, but in the instant case, we could not find any such report placed on the record. If the respondent's stand is that an investigation was not required because it was a simple case of repudiation on the ground that the vehicle was not registered, then the following questions cast a shadow on the working of the insurance company - respondent:
5(a) If it was known to the respondent that the vehicle was not registered and it was also known to them that without a registration number, the policy will not be valid, then why was a cover note issued to the owner?
(b) If the insurer's stand is that, as per directions of the company, un-registered vehicles may also be insured, then why was the claim of the complainant repudiated?
(c) If it was such a simple case of repudiation that an investigation was not required, then why had the respondent taken so much time in intimating the complainant that her claim has been repudiated? It may be noted that the claim was lodged immediately after the death of the complainant's husband on 23.10.2002 and the intimation letter in respect of repudiation of her claim is dated 10.10.2003, i.e., almost after a year.
9. Learned counsel for the respondent, in support of the defence taken by the respondent, placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Aeroflot Soviet Airlines Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.; IV (2006) CPJ 62 (NC), wherein the Hon'ble National Commission has held as under:
"A combined reading of Sections 39 and 56 of the Motor Vehicles Act makes it abundantly clear that the vehicle could not have been driven in any public place unless the provisions of Chapter IV of the Motor Vehicles Act were observed."6
10. We are also of the view that if the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act are violated, the insured loses his right for any sort of claims, which may be available to him in the form of a social protection. One must first follow the related statutory provisions and then he / she should lodge a claim. In other words, our firm view is that only the law abiding citizens / consumers have a right to enjoy a social protection against various risks covered under the insurance policies. The deceased had been driving an un-registered motorcycle till 17.10.2002 since 1999, which is an offence punishable under Section 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
11. For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal is devoid of merit and, as such, is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost.
12. Let a copy of the order be sent to the Chairman, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. at its registered Head Office, 87, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Fort, Mumbai - 400 001, who may like to conduct an enquiry in respect of issuing an insurance cover note in favour of such a vehicle, which was never registered; the purchase invoice / receipt of which had allegedly been lost and which had identical chassis and engine number.
(C.C. PANT) (JUSTICE IRSHAD HUSSAIN)