NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD vs MEENAKSHI JARIAL

This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 05.02.2013, passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as "the State Commission") in First Appeal No. 53 of 2008, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. vs. Meenakshi Jarial, vide which, the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hoshiarpur dated 06.12.2007 in Consumer Complaint No. 240 of 10.08.2007 was ordered to be modified.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant/respondent insured her Tata truck with the petitioner, Insurance Company for the period 31.05.2006 to 30.05.2007 for an assured sum of 15,20,000/- and paid premium of 21,351/-. As stated in the consumer complaint, there was a dispute between the complainant/respondent and M/s. Balwant Sales Ltd., the dealer of the vehicle as to whether they had delivered 2005 model of the vehicle, instead of 2006 model to the complainant/respondent. It has been stated in the complaint that the dealer paid a sum of 40,000/- to them as compensation and issued a bill and a sale letter dated 11.12.2006 (although the vehicle was purchased on 12.06.2006). The said vehicle was got registered on 23.02.2007 after paying the late fee etc. and thereafter, the route permit was applied for the said truck. The said vehicle was damaged in an accident on 14.01.2007 and a report to this affect was given to the police as well as to the Insurance Company, which appointed a surveyor for the spot survey of the vehicle. The complainant/respondent got the said truck repaired from M/s. Libra Automobiles, Singriwala, Hoshiarpur and paid an amount of 2,39,870/-, vide invoice dated 26.02.2007. The Insurance Company appointed a surveyor to assess the loss, who gave its report on 30.03.2007 and assessed the loss at Rs. 1,83,118/-. However, the Insurance Company refused to entertain the claim on the ground that the vehicle was not registered on the day of the accident, neither it had any route permit for plying the truck and even the fitness certificate was not there. The complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Forum demanding a sum of Rs. 2,39,170/- as the loss suffered by them, alongwith Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs. 11,000/- for the litigation expenses. The complaint was resisted by the Insurance Company by filing a written statement before the District Forum in which they stated that the insured vehicle did not have a registration certificate, valid route permit and fitness certificate on the day of the accident. The District Forum after taking into account the contentions raised by the parties, allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner/opposite party to make payment of Rs. 1,83,118/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the complaint i.e. 10.08.2007 till realization alongwith litigation cost of Rs. 1,000/-. Being aggrieved from this order, the petitioner/ Insurance Company challenged the same by way of an appeal before the State Commission, which was decided vide impugned order. The State Commission allowed the complaint and directed the Insurance Company to pay 75% of the admissible claim on non-standard basis. The Insurance Company was thus directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,29,838/- to the complainant. Being aggrieved against this order, the Insurance Company is before this Commission by way of the present revision petition.

During hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention to a copy of the repudiation letter, sent by them to the complainant, in which it has been stated as follows:- On going through the claim papers, we observed that: 1. The vehicle was not registered as on date of loss.

The vehicle was not having a valid fitness certificate as on date of loss.

The vehicle was not having a valid route permit as on date of loss."

The complaint was thus repudiated by the petitioner on the ground that on the date of loss, the vehicle was not registered and there was no valid fitness certificate and route permit for plying the vehicle. The learned counsel, further, stated that a temporary set of registration had been issued for the vehicle, which was valid from 12.06.2006 to 11.07.2007, a copy of which has been produced on record. A copy of the goods carriage permit, issued by the Secretary Regional Transport Authority, Jalandhar had also been produced on record, according to which the permit was valid from 05.03.2007 to 04.03.2012. The learned counsel stated however that there was violation of statutory provisions of The Motors Vehicles Act on the part of the complainant. Under Section 39 of The Motor Vehicles Act, it was not permissible to drive the vehicle without proper registration certificate. Further, in accordance with Section 53 of the Act, the vehicle was required to have a fitness certificate. A route permit was also required for plying the commercial vehicle in accordance with Section 66 of the Act. The claim had, therefore, been rightly repudiated by the Insurance Company. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel has drawn attention to a catena of judgments, passed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India and this Commission. In particular, he referred to judgment of the Hon''ble Apex Court in Narinder Singh vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., as reported in IV (2014) CPJ 11 (SC) , in which it was stated that using vehicle on public road without any registration was an offence punishable under Section 192 of The Motor Vehicles Act, and also a fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of the policy contract. A similar view has been expressed by the National Commission in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Vidya Bai, as reported in I (2015) CPJ 384 (NC), Saleena Rani Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. in I (2015) CPJ 220 (NC), United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kishore Sharma in I (2015) CPJ 760 (NC) and Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. vs. Pratap Bhagwan Patil in II (2015) CPJ 739 (NC) . The learned counsel has also drawn attention to the order of the Hon''ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Challa Bharathamma, as reported in 2004 ACJ 2094 , in which it has been held that where the insured had not obtained the permit to ply the vehicle, the Insurance Company was not liable to give the claim. A similar view has been expressed by this Commission in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Dharam Raj, IV (2005) CPJ 115 (NC) and also in Aeroflot Soviet Airlines vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., IV (2006) CPJ 62 . The learned counsel has also drawn attention to the orders made by (NC) this Commission in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Trilok Kaushik, as reported in IV (2010) CPJ 321 (NC) , Kaushalendra Kumar Mishra vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. , as reported in II (2012) CPJ 189 (NC) , Pal Singh vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. , as reported in III (2012) CPJ 489 (NC) , Din Dayal vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. , as reported in I (2013) CPJ 10 (NC) , Manoj Banerjee vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr, as reported in I (2013) CPJ 542 (NC) and Bharti Axa General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. vs. B. A. Lokesh Kumar, as reported in III (2013) CPJ 528 (NC) .

Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent stated that the process of registration etc. got delayed because there was dispute between the complainant and the dealer of the vehicle regarding the model of the vehicle. The process of the registration was, therefore, issued by the dealer on 11.12.2006. The learned counsel referred to the order of the State Commission, saying that the said Commission had rightly allowed the claim on non-standard basis, relying upon the order of the Hon''ble Apex Court in Amalendu Sahoo vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., decided on 25.03.2010 in Civil Appeal No. 2703 of 2010. The learned counsel also referred to the order of the Hon''ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Challa Bharathamma (supra ), in which the Court directed the Insurance Company to deposit the amount and recover the same from the insured. The learned counsel also maintained that the conditions regarding fitness certificate, valid permit etc., were not contained in the insurance policy in question and hence, the Insurance Company could not have repudiated the claim if such conditions were not satisfied.

The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, responded that if there was violation of statutory provisions of law, the claim was not payable, even if there was no such mention of such conditions in the insurance policy.

I have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties before me.

The facts of the case as admitted by both the parties are that the insurance policy in question was valid for the period 31.05.2006 to 30.05.2007 and the accident took place on 14.01.2007, which falls within this period. However, the registration of the vehicle was carried out on 20.03.2007 and the permit for the same was granted w.e.f. 05.03.2007. The case of the complainant/respondent is that following some dispute with the dealer, the sale letter of the vehicle was issued on 11.12.2006. The learned counsel for the complainant/respondent, however, could not clarify whether there was any temporary registration for the vehicle on the date of the accident i.e. 14.01.2007. It is quite evident that the vehicle did not have any registration, neither it had any route permit or fitness certificate on the date of the accident. In a catena of judgments made by the Hon''ble Apex Court and this Commission, it has been held from time to time that the claims are not payable if there is no valid registration certificate, fitness certificate or route permit for the said vehicle. It is quite evident that there is violation of the statutory provisions of law contained in the Motor Vehicles Act on the part of the complainant. Relying upon the judgments referred, it is very clear that there is no justification for allowing the complaint even on a non-standard basis. The violation of statutory provisions of law cannot be permitted and hence the claim cannot be allowed even to a limited extent. The contention of the complainant/respondent that in the case, National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Challa Bharathamma (supra) , the Insurance Company was directed to deposit the amount and recover the same from the insured is also not applicable in the present case, because the amount had to be paid to a third party in that case. The decision in this case is not helpful to the complainant at all, because the Insurance Company is not held liable to pay the claim to the complainant.

Based on the discussion above, it is held that the orders passed by the State Commission as well as the District Forum are not sustainable in the eyes of law and the same are ordered to be set aside. This revision petition is, therefore, allowed and the Consumer Complaint in question stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.