ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD vs Ajeet Verma

K .S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 10.02.2012 passed by the M.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal (in short, ''the State Commission '') in Appeal No. 1221/09 - Ajeet Verma Vs. The Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd. by which, while allowing appeal, order of District Forum dismissing complaint was set aside.

BRIEF facts of the case are that complainant/respondent purchased Tata Safari on 7.11.2007 and got it insured from OP/petitioner for a period of one year from 7.11.2007 to 6.11.2008. At the time of insurance, vehicle was unregistered. On 9.11.2007, vehicle met with an accident and upto that period, registration was not applied. Complainant lodged claim with the OP and surveyor assessed loss of Rs.7,02,000/ -. As vehicle was not registered, OP assessed claim on non -standard basis to the tune of Rs.5,26,250/ -. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that repudiation of claim on violation of law is not unreasonable and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties, dismissed complaint. Appeal filed by the complainant was allowed by learned State Commission vide impugned order and held that complainant was entitled to Rs.7,02,000/ - as compensation subject to deduction of Rs.3,00,000/ - as salvage value and further allowed 9% p.a. interest from 5.5.2008, the date when offer was made by OP against which this revision petition has been filed along with application for condonation of delay. Heard learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record.

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that delay of 62 days in filing revision petition may be condoned as delay occurred in taking opinion and not getting certified copy of the order. Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that there is no reasonable explanation for condonation of delay of 62 days; hence, application for condonation of delay be dismissed.

IN application for condonation of delay, it has been mentioned that file was sent to the Advocate for his opinion and after receiving opinion, certified copy of the impugned order was not made available; hence, delay occurred in filing revision petition. No doubt, petitioner should have obtained legal opinion from the Advocate well in time and should have filed revision petition within time, but as there is delay of only 62 days in filing revision petition and important legal issue is involved in the revision petition, we deem it appropriate to condone the delay subject to payment of Rs.5,000/ - as cost to the respondent. This Commission in R.P. No. 3440 of 2012 dismissed revision as it was barred by 59 days. Hon ''ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 4226 of 2014 decided on 24.2.2014 condoned the delay of 59 days and remanded the matter back to the National Commission for deciding revision petition on merits. As far merits of the case are concerned, it is admitted fact that at the time of incident which occurred just after 2 days of obtaining insurance policy, vehicle was not registered with the registering authority.

LEANED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that no vehicle can be plied on the road unless it is registered with the registering authority under Section 47 of the Motor Vehicle Act and as there was no registration certificate in favour of the complainant, petitioner rightly allowed 75% compensation on non -standard basis. In support of his contention learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on judgment of this Commission in R.P. No. 1834 of 2013 - The Manager, Bharti AXA General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. B.A. Lokesh Kumar in which similar question arose and while allowing revision petition, observed as under: ''''Having considered the submissions of the parties, the short point that has arisen for our decision is as to whether the two Fora below were right in returning their concurrent finding in favour of the respondent in spite of the undisputed fact that the vehicle in dispute did not have a valid registration number on the date of the accident and hence was being used in violation of the law and condition of the insurance policy. In this context, we may note that that registration of the vehicle is a mandatory requirement of the law and the relevant provisions as contained in Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 may be reproduced as under: - ''''39. Necessity for registration. - No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this Chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner: Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a motor vehicle in possession of a dealer to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government. ''''

In view of the aforesaid requirement of law, it is clear that both the fora below gravely erred in ignoring and rejecting the plea taken by the petitioner while returning their concurrent finding accepting the complaint. They should have appreciated that the use of the vehicle in question was in violation of the law itself and hence would take it beyond the protection of the insurance policy. We have therefore no hesitation in setting aside the impugned order and accepting the revision petition. The present case is squarely covered by the ratio of the two judgments relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner. We, therefore, allow the revision petition and set aside the impugned order leaving the parties to bear their own cost.

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on judgment of this Commission in I (2013) CPJ 10 (NC) - DeenDayal Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. in which Justice Malik while dictating order of Coordinate Bench observed that registration of the vehicle is mandatory requirement of law to drive the vehicle on any place or any other place and there was violation of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicle Act. On the other hand learned Counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on judgment of this Commission in R.P. No. 626 of 2013 - M/s. Aroma Paints Ltd. Vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. in which while referring many other judgments of this Commission, it was observed that Insurance Company does not enjoin the powers of traffic police and claim cannot be dismissed under the guise of Section 192 of Motor Vehicle Act and allowed complaint. Justice Malik while deciding this revision observed that SLP (C) No. 27660 of 2012 against the order of this Commission in R.P. No. 171 of 2012 has been dismissed.

ORDER of Hon ''ble Apex Court in SLP (C) No. 27660 of 2012 runs as under: ''''The special leave petition is dismissed. However, question of law is kept open ''''.

THUS , it becomes clear that Hon ''ble Apex Court has not decided legal issue and legal issue has been kept open. No doubt, complainant committed offence under the Motor Vehicle Act while driving vehicle on road without obtaining registration certificate but at the same time, he also committed breach of the terms and conditions of the policy and in such circumstances, we agree with the view taken by the Coordinate Bench of this Commission in The Manager, Bharti AXA General Insurance Co. Ltd. (Supra) and held that learned State Commission committed error in allowing full claim, whereas complainant should have accepted 75% of the loss on non -standard basis offered by OP. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is partly allowed and impugned order dated 10.02.2012 passed by learned State Commission in Appeal No. 1221 of 2009 - Ajeet Verma Vs. The Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd. is modified and amount of Rs.7,02,000/ - is substituted by Rs.5,25,250/ - and rest of the order is upheld.