BHAGU RAM vs NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.

The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 05.05.2016 of the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (''the State Commission'') in Appeal no. 97 of 2016.

The brief facts of the case as per the petitioner/ complainant are that the petitioner has got his turbo truck vehicle with registration no. RJ 21 GA 2617, insured from the respondent. The period of insurance was from 06.07.2011 to 05.07.2012. According to the petitioner, the turbo truck no. RJ 21 GA 1566 met with an accident on National Highway no. 15 and the petitioner had to incur an expenditure of Rs.13,50,819/- for its repair. A claim was filed but the respondent has not settled the claim.

The respondent has stated in their reply that the surveyor had assessed the damage at Rs.7,57,059/- in its survey report. There was no valid and effective fitness of the said vehicle of the petitioner and due to violation of the policy conditions, this amount was not payable.

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nagaur (''the District Forum'') vide its order dated 04.11.2015 while allowing the complaint observed as under: " It is directed that the complainant is entitled to get Rs.7,57,059/- from the opposite party and the opposite party shall also pay interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, i.e., 04.11.2013 till recovery. Along with this the opposite party shall pay Rs.5000/- for litigation expenses and shall also pay Rs.5000/- for mental agony to the complainant".

Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the respondent/ opposite party filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission vide their order dated 05.05.2016 while setting aside the order of the District Forum and dismissing the complaint held as under: "In this case, the insurance of the vehicle and the accident is not disputed. On the date of accident on 02.09.2011 there was no fitness certificate of the vehicle. According to the complainant a receipt of Rs.500/- was got issued from DTO, Merta City but fitness certificate was not issued and after two days, this accident occurred. In this regard in citation IV (2006) CPJ 62 (NC) Aeroflot Soviet Airlines vs United India Insurance Company Ltd., it is settled that, "it is admitted position that on the date when vehicle was set of fire, there was no valid certificate of fitness, account of which this vehicle could not have been brought on road, which is clear case of violation of conditions of warrantee of the policy in view of which we see no ground to interfered with the well-reasoned order passed by the State Commission". Since there was no fitness certificate of the vehicle, in this condition complainant could not have even brought this vehicle on the road. In this condition, the order of the District Forum seems to be arbitrary and liable to be set aside and it is set aside".

Hence, the present revision petition.

We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has admitted that on the date of accident, i.e., 02.09.2011, the turbo truck vehicle did not have valid fitness certificate as it had expired about a month and a half before the accident. However, the petitioner had applied for a fitness certificate on 30.08.2011.

We have gone through the record. Admittedly, on the date of accident, the truck which is a transport vehicle did not have a valid fitness certificate. In this regard, the National Commission in the case of Aeroflot Soviet Airlines vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd., decided on 31 July st 2006 held as under: 5. 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 Vehicle Act were observed. Section 56 (1) with proviso makes it abundantly clear that, no vehicle would be deemed to be ''validly registered for the purpose of section 39 unless it carried a certificate of Fitness.....

It is admitted position, that on the date when the vehicle was set on fire, there was no valid certificate of fitness, account of which this vehicle could not have been brought on road, which is a clear case of violation of conditions of warranty of the policy in view of which we see no ground to interfere with the well-reasoned order passed by the State Commission".

The facts of the case, as observed by the State Commission are applicable to this case also. We are also of the view that as there was no fitness certificate of the vehicle on the date of the accident, driving the vehicle without a fitness certificate was a breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and hence, he is not liable to be compensated under the said policy.

The Hon''ble Supreme Court in Mrs Rubi (Chandra) Dutta vs M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2011 (3) Scale 654 has observed: "Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view than what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21 (b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken by setting aside the concurrent findings of two fora."

Thus, we find that no jurisdictional or legal error has been shown to us in the impugned order to call for our interference under Section 21 (b) of Act. The order of the State Commission does not call for any interference nor does it suffer from any infirmity or erroneous exercise of jurisdiction or material irregularity. Thus, the present revision petition is hereby, dismissed and we uphold the order of the State Commission and dismiss the complaint.