CourtKutchehry.com
Tribunals and Commissions

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. vs ASHWANI KUMAR

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · Decided on 14 July 2014 · Citation: 2014 0 NCDRC 432 : 2014 3 CPJ 378

HON’BLE JUDGES
J.M.MALIK , S.M.Kantikar J.
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 341 words
1.

ASHWINIKUMAR , the complainant purchased a Bolero SLX from M/s Supreme Automobiles Mahindra & Mahindra Limited, Hisar on 10.06.2011. The said vehicle was stolen on 21.07.2011 when it was parked in front of his house. F.I.R. was lodged with the police on the next day on 22.07.2011. The surveyor appointed by the Opposite Party -National Insurance Company also investigated the matter. The National Insurance Company repudiated the claim vide letter dated 25.05.2012 on the ground that only temporary registration was issued to the petitioner in June 2011. The complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum. The District Forum allowed the claim.

2.

AGGRIEVED by that order, the OP filed the First Appeal. The State Commission also dismissed the appeal. Consequently, both the fora have given the concurrent findings. We have heard the counsel for the petitioner at length, at the time of admission of this case. He contended that the complainant has violated Section 39 of the Motor Vehicle Act. Consequently, the repudiation made by the petitioner, is valid.

3.

IT must be borne in mind that Section 43 Clause 2 of the Motor Vehicle Act provides for the extension of time granted for temporary registration. Again, Section 39 of the M.V. Act restricts the person to drive the vehicle unless the same is registered in accordance with Chapter IV of the M.V. Act. There is no iota of evidence that the vehicle was being driven at the time of theft. This question is no more Res integra. The National Commission has taken its view in the cases reported in IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Pratima Jha, RP No.171 of 2012, decided on 27.04.2012 and in M/s Aroma Paints Ltd. and Mr. Rajiv Sethi Versus The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. III(2013)CPJ 635(NC) in Revision Petition No. 626 of 2013 decided on 07.08.2013.

4.

LEARNED counsel for the petitioner conceded that SLPs were filed against the judgments, which were dismissed. Consequently, the petitioner/OP has got no bone to pluck with the complainant. The Revision Petition is, therefore, dismissed.