DIN DAYAL vs NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD

SHRI Din Dayal, complainant/petitioner purchased truck bearing No. HR 69 B/1665 on 12.3.2007. The vehicle was insured with the respondent, National Insurance Company Limited for the period from 12.3.2007 to 11.3.2008. On 1.10.2007, when the truck was carrying building material between Sonepat and Yamuna Nagar, it was parked near Chintpurni Temple, Sector 14, Sonepat after the building material was unloaded. The driver returned to the spot on 3.10.2007 and found that his truck had been stolen. The FIR was lodged on 8.10.2007 under Section 379, IPC with Police Station, Civil Lines, Sonepat. The Insurance Company was informed and it deputed its Surveyor, Shri Laxman Dass Arora. During inspection, it transpired that the vehicle was stolen between 1.10.2007 and 3.10.2007. The registration certificate and route permit were issued to the complainant on 8.10.2007. Under these circumstances, the claim made by the complainant was repudiated.

A complaint was filed before the District Forum. The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party-respondent to make a payment of Rs. 11,87,500. It was to carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of lodging of the complaint by the complainant with the respondent till its actual realization. The complainant was also awarded Rs. 5,000 as compensation and Rs. 2,000 as litigation charges. Aggrieved by that order, the Insurance Company filed appeal before the State Commission which vide its order dated 17.7.2012 accepted the appeal and dismissed the complaint.

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the complainant received the registration certificate and route permit on 8.10.2007. Consequently, FIR had to be delayed for a period of 5 days. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the petitioner got registration certificate and route permit after about 5 days, therefore, his action is liable to be condoned.

THESE arguments do not sound very convinced. Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 lays down that the registration of the vehicle is mandatory requirement of law to drive the vehicle on any place or any other place. In support of his case, the State Commission has placed reliance upon the order of this Commission in the case of Kaushalendra Kumar Mishra v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, I (2012) CPJ 559 (NC). Consequently, there was violation of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act. In this case, route permit was issued to the complainant on 8.10.2007 subsequent to the commission of theft on 3.10.2007. Section 42 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 makes it mandatory to have the route permit. This view finds force from the judgment of this Commission titled as United India Insurance Company Limited v. Trilok Kaushik, IV (2010) CPJ 321 (NC)=decided on 9.11.2010 in Revision Petition No. 2976 of 2006. Learned State Commission correctly held that the terms and conditions of insurance policy have to be construed strictly as per law laid down in Suraj Mal Ram Niwas Oil Mills (P) Ltd. v. United India Insurance Company and Anr., IV (2010) CPJ 38 (SC)=VIII (2010) SLT 375=IV (2010) ACC 653 (SC).

LAST but not the least, there was delay in lodging the FIR for one reason or the other. If the FIR was lodged in time, it would have given time to the police to investigate the case immediately. After five days, the thieves must have taken it on the lam and it had become very difficult to detect the stolen vehicle. Same is the position for the Insurance Company. The requirement of law is that the report with the police must be lodged immediately without any delay. Same is the position which has to be followed in the case of Insurance Company.

THE revision petition is without merit and therefore, the same is dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed.