National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Vidya Bai on 5 December, 2014
NATIONAL
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
REVISION PETITION
NO. 3937 OF
2013
(Against
the order dated 11-07-2013 in First Appeal No. 1105/2012
of
the State Commission, Madhya Pradesh)
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
THROUGH ITS DULY CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY,
MANAGER,
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD.,
HEAD OFFICE,
88 JANPATH, CONNAUGHT PLACE,
NEW DELHI - 110001
...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
VIDYA BAI
W/O KISHORILAL JAISHWAL,
R/O BALASMAD,
TEHSIL RAJPUR,
DISTRICT : BADWANI
M.P.
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE
:
HONBLE
MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER
For
the Petitioner : Mr. Abhishek Kumar, advocate
For
the Respondent : Mr. Harshvardhan
Singh Rathore,
Advocate
PRONOUNCED ON 5th
DECEMBER, 2014
O
R D E R
PER JUSTICE K.S.
CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER
This revision petition has
been filed by the petitioner against order dated 11-07-2013 passed by the
learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madhya Pradesh (in short,
the State Commission) in Appeal No. 1105/2012 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.
Smt. Vidhya Bai, by which while allowing appeal
partly, order of the District Forum allowing complaint was upheld but order of
payment of compensation and interest was set aside.
2. Brief facts of
the case are that complainant/respondent got her vehicle Mahindra Bolero
insured from opposite party/petitioner for a period of one year from 05-06-2006
to 04-06-2007. Insured vehicle was
stolen on 24-09-2006 which was parked in front of complainants house. Complainant lodged report with the Police
Station but vehicle could not be traced.
Information was also given to insurance company. It was further submitted that after 3-4 days
of purchase of vehicle, complainants husband was admitted in hospital and she
spent time in her husbands treatment due to which she could not get the
vehicle registered. Complainant lodged
claim with the opposite party which was repudiated on the ground that vehicle
was not registered which amounted to breach of terms and conditions of
policy. Alleging deficiency on the part
of the opposite party complainant filed complaint before District Forum. Opposite party resisted complaint and
submitted that his vehicle was not registered which was clear breach of
conditions of the policy as well Motor Vehicle Act provisions and prayed for
dismissal of complaint. Learned District
Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed opposite
party to pay Rs.4,70,250/- along with 8% p.a. interest
and further pay Rs.5,000/- for deficiency in service and Rs.1,000/- as
litigation charges. Appeal filed by
opposite party was partly allowed and order directing payment of interest and
Rs.5,000/- for deficiency in service was set aside and
rest of the order was affirmed, against which this revision petition has been
filed along with application for condonation of delay.
3. Heard learned
Counsel for the petitioner finally at admission stage and perused record.
4. Learned counsel
for the petitioner submitted that there was delay of 32 days in filing revision
petition which occurred due to sanctions from different offices and in
procuring documents. As there is delay
of only 32 days in filing revision petition which occurred due to sanctions
from different offices and in procuring documents, application for condonation
of delay is allowed, subject to payment of Rs.5,000/- as cost to the
respondent.
5. Learned counsel
for the petitioner submitted that as vehicle was not registered on the date of
alleged theft, it was clear violation of the terms and conditions of policy as
well Motor Vehicle Act and learned District Forum committed error in allowing
complaint and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing
appeal, hence revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set
aside. On the other hand, learned
counsel for the respondent submitted that as complainant was busy in treatment
of her husband, vehicle could not be got registered and order passed by learned
State Commission is in accordance with law, hence revision petition be
dismissed.
6. It is admitted
case of the parties that vehicle was purchased by the complainant on 05-06-2006
and it was insured by opposite party for a period of one year from 05-06-2006
to 04-06-2007. As per complainant,
vehicle was stolen on 24-09-2006 which was parked in front of complainants
house. It is also admitted fact that on
the date of theft vehicle was not registered.
7. Learned counsel
for the petitioner submitted that under Section 39 of the Motor Vehicle Act,
vehicle cannot be driven unless it is registered. It was further submitted that as vehicle was
not registered on the day of theft it amounted to violation of the terms and
conditions of policy as well Motor Vehicle Act, hence no claim was
payable. In support of his contention,
he has placed reliance on judgment of this Commission in Revision Petition No. 1834 of
2012 Manager, Bharti AXA General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. B.A. Lokesh and Revision Petition No. 4043 of 2008 Kaushalendra Kumar Mishra Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
in which it was observed that if vehicle was not registered no claim was
payable. On the other hand learned
counsel for the respondent placed reliance on judgment of this Commission in Revision
Petition No. 52 of 2012 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
Vs. Pearls Buildwell Infrastructure
Ltd. & Ors. and Revision
Petition No. 497 of 2012 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swami Devi Dayal, in which it was held that insurance company
is not entitled to repudiate claim only on the ground that vehicle was not
registered.
8. Thus it becomes
clear that conflicting views have been expressed by this Commission in
different revision petitions. Learned
counsel for the respondent placed reliance on judgment of Honble Apex Court in
the case of Amalendu Sahoo
Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (2010) 4 SCC 536, in which it was
held that in case of violation of conditions of policy claim should be settled
on non-standard basis and 75% of the admissible claim should be paid. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
petitioner placed reliance on recent judgment of Honble Apex Court in Civil
Appeal No. 8463 of 2014 Narinder Singh Vs. New
India Assurance Company Ltd. & Ors., in which after considering Amalendu Sahoos case it was 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.
9. In the case in
hand complainant had not placed any evidence on record that after getting
vehicle insured she ever applied for extension of temporary registration or
applied for permanent registration under Section 39 of the Motor Vehicle
Act. Merely by mentioning that after
purchase of vehicle, complainants husband, on account serious illness was
admitted in various hospitals and she remained busy to help her husband, it
cannot be a sufficient ground for not getting vehicle registered for 110 days
and in such circumstances I do not find any deficiency on the part of the
petitioner in repudiating claim. Learned
District Forum committed error in allowing complaint and learned State
Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal and revision petition
is to be allowed.
10. Consequently,
revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and order dated 11-07-2013
passed by learned State Commission in Appeal No. 1105/2012 Oriental Insurance
Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Vidhya Bai and order of District
Forum dated 15-01-2008 passed in Complaint No. 2/2008 Vidhya
Bai Vs. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. is set aside and
complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
Sd/-
..
(K.S. CHAUDHARI, J.) PRESIDING MEMBER aj/