PUSHPA DEVI vs National Insurance Co Ltd

-THIS appeal is against the order dated 23rd April, 2003 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Bhilwara whereby the complaint of the complainant was dismissed. The complainant owns a Jeep, which was comprehensively insured for the period from 17. 3. 1999 to 16. 3. 2000. The said Jeep met with an accident on 15. 9. 1999. Claim was filed by the complainant with the Insurance Company claiming Rs. 95,340. Surveyor was appointed by the Insurance Company who assessed the loss at Rs. 38,319. After deducting salvage value the total amount found payable was Rs. 35,190. The claim was repudiated by the company on the ground that at the time of accident, the vehicle had no fitness certificate. The complaint was dismissed on this ground alone. Feeling aggrieved this appeal has been filed.

THE learned Counsel for the complainant submitted that at the most, it is a case of violation of provisions of Motor Vehicles Act. The Surveyor has nowhere mentioned that non-existence of fitness certificate has contributed to the accident and, therefore, simply on this technical ground, the claim should not have been rejected. The learned Counsel frankly conceded that the claim can be allowed on non-standard basis. The learned Counsel for the respondent while citing the judgment of the National Commission in Aeroflot Soviet Airlines v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. , IV (2006) CPJ 62 (NC), submitted that the certificate of fitness of transport vehicle is mandatory under Section 56 of the Motor Vehicles Act and in case the Vehicle is brought on the road without having fitness certificate, claim for own damage can not be allowed.

We have given thoughtful consideration to rival contentions. At this stage, we will like to mention that the New India Assurance Company Ltd. issued a Circular on 13th May, 1997 wherein the instructions were issued to settle the claim on non-standard basis in case non-existence of fitness certificate has in no way contributed to the accident. Although the instant matter relates to the National Insurance Company Ltd. , but the above Circular gives some insight. Aeroflot Soviet case (supra) relates to the period from 20. 5. 1990 to 19. 5. 1991 whereas the instant case relates to the period from 17. 3. 1999 to 16. 3. 2000. Although no circular was shown to have been issued by the National Insurance Company Ltd. , but both these companies are subsidiaries of General Insurance Company and, therefore, we can derive some help from the above circular. We feel that in case non-existence of fitness certificate has not contributed to the accident then the claim should be allowed on non-standard basis. We have perused the report submitted by the Surveyor who has nowhere mentioned that fitness certificate has anything to do with the accident.

FOR the foregoing reasons, we feel that 75% of the amount assessed by the Surveyor should be allowed to the complainant. Consequently, we allow this appeal partially and direct the respondent Insurance Company to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 26,340 with interest @ 9% per annum from 31. 12. 2001. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own cost. Appeal partly allowed.