Haryana

StateCommission

A/250/2015

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

DEEPAK GULATI - Opp.Party(s)

SANDEEP PURI

02 Nov 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

         

                                        First Appeal No.250 of 2015

                                      Date of Institution:02.03.2015 and 16.03.2015

                                      Date of Decision : 02.11.2016

 

National Insurance Company Limited, 5C 1 and 2 BP, Railway Road, Neelam Chowk, NIT, Faridabad through it Manager.

                                                …Appellant

                                      Versus

Deepak Gulati S/o Shri Budh Ram R/o H.No.2N/20. N.P. NIT Faridabad.

                                                …Respondent

CORAM:   Mr. R.K. Bishnoi, Judicial Member

                   Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

Present:     Mr.Sandeep Suri, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr.P.K.Mutneja, Advocate for the respondent.

                                      O R D E R

R.K. BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

          It was alleged by the complainant that he got insured his vehicle with the opposite party (O.P.) for the period 10.09.2010 to 09.09.2011 and insured value was Rs.4,75,000/-.  On 12.01.2011 when tractor was parked outside his house the same was stolen and FIR No.21 dated 18.01.2011 was registered at Police Station (P.S.). Kotwali, Faridabad for the offence punishable under section 379 of Indian Penal Code of 1860 (In short “IPC”).  He handed over all the documents required by O.P., but, his claim was repudiated without any reason.

2.      O.P. filed reply controverting his averments and alleged that the tractor was not registered at the time of theft and information was given to it after five months and seven days.  So his claim was rightly repudiated.

3.      After hearing both the parties, learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad (In short “District Forum”) allowed the complaint vide impugned order dated 28.01.2015 and directed as under:-

“Opposite party is directed to pay Rs.4,75,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of this complaint till realization of amount within 30 (thirty) days from the date of receipt of this order to the complainant.  Opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.5500/- as compensation towards mental agony, harassment alongwith Rs.2200/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.”

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, O.P. has preferred this appeal.

5.      Arguments heard.  File perused.

6.      Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the complainant purchased tractor on 31.03.2010 whereas he got it registered on 20.01.2011 i.e. after date of theft. According to Section 39 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (In short “Act”) a vehicle is to be got registered within one month. When he did not get registered the vehicle within time he was not entitled to ply it without proper registration. Initially it was got temporarily registered. When complainant has failed to get the vehicle registered, he is not entitled for any compensation.  He placed reliance upon opinion of Hon’ble Supreme Court expressed in civil appeal No.8463 of 2014 titled as Narinder Singh Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited decided on  04.09.2014 and Hon’ble National Commission expressed in Revision petition No.4235 of 2014 titled as Ms. Saleena Rani Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited decided on 08.12.2014.  It was also argued that complainant gave information about theft after five months and seven days, whereas he was supposed to inform immediately when he has violated the terms and conditions of insurance policy, he is not entitled for any compensation. 

7.      These arguments are of no avail.  From the perusal of information dated 26.03.2014 provided by O.P.-appellant it is clear that information about theft was received in it’s office on 14.01.2011 i.e. after one day, so it cannot be alleged that complainant did not inform insurance company about theft immediately.  It shows that company is not coming with clean hands and is concealing true facts.

8.      Further as per facts mentioned above, it is clear that when theft took place tractor was standing  at the house of the accused. He was not using it at any public place.  If any vehicle is standing at one’s house without registration and is stolen it does not mean that he is not entitled for any compensation.  As per section 39 of the Act a person cannot bring any vehicle in a public place without proper registration certificate. The complainant had not taken vehicle to any other place at the time of the theft. Had he taken it to any public place then it could have been a different matter.

9.      More so, as per Ex.C-4 it is clear that vehicle was registered on 20.01.2011.  Complainant must have submitted application before this date because pencil imprint is required for chassis number and engine number. Had he not applied for registration before theft it would not have been possible to obtain chassis number and engine number.  In Para No.9 of reply it is alleged by O.P. that the temporary registration certificate had expired and no fee was paid by complainant to renew temporary registration, but, O.P. has failed to prove this fact. There is no evidence on the file showing that complainant did not pay any  charges for extension of temporary registration etc.  So it cannot opined that complainant is not entitled for any compensation. Findings of learned District Forum are well reasoned based on law and facts and cannot be ignored. So appellant cannot derive benefit from the cited case laws because they are based on altogether different facts. Resultantly, appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed.

10.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.

 

November 02nd, 2016            Urvashi Agnihotri                                R.K.Bishnoi,                                                               Member                                              Judicial Member                                                         Addl. Bench                                        Addl.Bench                

S.K.