Dated: 22.02.2024

Miss Gita Verma (Judicial Member)

Order

1. This appeal by an insurance company (O.P. no. 1) has been filed against the order dated 18.07.2018 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Munger ordering to pay the complainant 75% of the loss sustained due to damaged of the insured vehicle in the alleged accident with 6% interest thereon w.e.f 04.03.2016, Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for physical and mental harassment and Rs. 5,000/- as cost of litigation.
2. The case of complainant, in short, is that he had purchased a Renault Duster Car having engine no. EO-47403, Chasis no. BO44917 which was financed by Branch Manager, Bank of India, Bariarpur, Munger (O.P. no. 2). It was insured with O.P. no. 1 for the period 14.12.2013 to 13.12.2014 under policy number 2013-V2771358FPV. The said vehicle met with an accident on 18.05.2014 at 12:30 AM at Bengali Tola, Bariyarpur in which it was totally damaged, he filed claim before O.P. no. 1 but it was repudiated on the ground that the vehicle was plying on public road without registration and the claim was filed after inordinate delay of about six months. He has further alleged that it was gross deficiency in service on the part of the insurance company hence, the complaint.
3. The appellant-O.P. no. 1 has stated in its written statement besides other fact that the vehicle in question was not registered according to the provisions of M.V. Act. It was being driven on public road without any registration number. In such case, claim can not be allowed according to terms and conditions of the policy. So, it has rightly repudiated the claim. As such the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
4. Heard the learned counsels for the both parties and perused the record.
5. The complainant has not mentioned any registration number of the vehicle in the complaint petition. It transpires therefrom that the vehicle was not registered according to the provisions of section 39 of the M.V. Act at the time of accident. The surveyor who examined the said vehicle after the accident has also stated this fact in his report (annexure-3 of O.P. no. 1). Other facts of the complaint petition so far purchase, financing, insurance of the vehicle and happening of accident are concerned have not been disputed by the appellant-O.P. no. 1.
6. It is found on perusing the impugned order that the District Forum after hearing both parties and considering the documents filed by them has allowed 75% of the claim on non-standard basis following the decision of Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Ashok Leyland Ltd Vs. Bharat Smelting Co. & Anr. Reported in (2012) 2 CPJ 589. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the aforesaid decision doesn’t now hold good because in a subsequent decision in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ajit Verma reported in (2014) 3 CPJ 184 the Hon’ble National Commission has ruled that plying of motor vehicle at public place without registration is violation of section 39 of the M.V. Act. And the violation of law itself would take it beyond the protection of insurance policy. So, the claim cannot be allowed in such case (last sub-para of para-7). Therefore, it has rightly repudiated the claim.
7. Considering the latest position of law on this point we find and hold that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the appellant-O.P. no. 1 in repudiating the claim. We further find and hold that the impugned order is legally not correct. Hence, we allow the appeal on contest and set aside the impugned order. Parties to bear their own costs.

Shamim Akhtar                                                                                      Gita Verma

(Judicial Member)                                                                            (Judicial Member)

Md. Fariduzzama