Punjab

StateCommission

FA/12/477

OIC Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Harchand Singh - Opp.Party(s)

Veena Ashwani Talwar

30 Jan 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,   PUNJAB    DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.

 

 

  First Appeal No.477 of 2012                                                        

            Date of institution  :    19.04.2012   

Date of decision     :    30.01.2015

 

1.      Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Regional Office,   Surendra Building, SCO No.109-111, Sector 17-D,    Chandigarh.

2.      Oriental Insurance Company Limited, having its Head Office at        Oriental House, A-25/27, Asif Ali Road, New Delhi.

3.      Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Loha Bazar, Mandi        Gobindgarh.

          1 to 3 through Sh. Ram Avtar, Deputy Manager-cum-      Authorized Signatory, Oriental Insurance Company Limited,   Regional Office, Surendra Building, SCO No.109-111, Sector     17-D, Chandigarh.

 

…….Appellants/Opposite Parties No.1 to 3

Versus

1.      Harchand Singh S/o Amar Singh, R/o Village Dedran, Tehsil   Bassi Pathana, District Fatehgarh Sahib.

                                                          …Respondent/Complainant

2.      Arun Marken, Development Officer, Oriental Insurance   Company Limited, Loha Bazar, Mandi Gobindgarh, R/o      H.No.131, Sector-2/C, Partap Nagar, Street No.1, Mandi         Gobindgarh, District Fatehgarh Sahib.   

 

                                                ….Respondent/Opposite Party No.4

First Appeal against the order dated 29.02.2012 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Fatehgarh Sahib.

Quorum:- 

 

          Hon’ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh, President.

                        Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member.

                        Mrs. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member.

Present:-

          For the appellants     :        Shri Rahul Sharma, Advocate.

          For respondent No.1 :        None.

          For respondent No.2 :        Service Dispensed With.

JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH,  PRESIDENT :

                    This appeal has been preferred by the appellants/ opposite parties Nos.1 to 3  against the order dated 29.02.2012 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Fatehgarh Sahib (in short, “District Forum”), vide which the complaint filed by respondent no.1/complainant, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, was allowed with Rs.5,000/-, as litigation charges and the opposite parties were directed to refund the amount of Rs.1,61,250/-, along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of theft till the realization of that amount.         

2.           The facts, in brief, are that the complainant purchased one vehicle (APE Three Wheeler, bearing Chassis No.MBX00002FMM183948 and Engine No.ROM2888973) from PACE Auto, Patiala, vide bill No.293 dated 25.01.2011, which was got financed by him from opposite party No.5-Punjab National Bank and was hypothecated in favour of that bank. He got insured the said vehicle with opposite parties Nos.1 to 3, vide cover note No.79593. The same was stolen from the area of Gurudwara Sri Fatehgarh Sahib on 13.02.2011 and he tried to search for the same here and there. On 21.02.2011, he lodged the FIR with Police Station, Fatehgarh Sahib, which was registered as FIR No.34 under Section 379 IPC. He submitted written request to opposite parties Nos.1 to 3 for the payment of the insurance amount after completing the necessary formalities. No response was received by him from their side. Ultimately, opposite parties Nos.1 to 3 repudiated his claim, vide letter dated 20.09.2011. Feeling aggrieved, the complainant filed the complaint, alleging therein that at the time of purchasing the policy, opposite parties Nos.1 to 4 had given assurance with regard to the cover “risk of theft”. He had completed the formalities at the instance of their officials and he was assured that he would be compensated, as early as possible. As a result of non-settlement of his claim, he suffered mental pain, agony and harassment. The opposite parties committed deficiency in service by not providing the compensation for the theft of the vehicle, for which they are liable to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.20,000/- and Rs.10,000/-, as litigation expenses; besides payment of the compensation for risk of theft.
3.           The complaint was contested by the opposite parties. Opposite parties Nos. 1 to 3 filed joint written reply, in which they admitted that the vehicle was insured with them for the period 26.02.2011 to 25.02.2012 and that the claim made by the complainant under the policy was repudiated on 20.09.2011. While denying the other allegations made in the complaint, they pleaded that the vehicle was purchased by the complainant on 25.01.2011 and was never got registered with the Registering Authority, as prescribed under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 upto the date of alleged theft. The temporary registration certificate was valid only from 17.02.2011 to 16.03.2011. Thus, on the date of the alleged theft, there was no valid registration of the vehicle. The claim made by the complainant was validly repudiated on that ground.  There was violation of the insurance contract by the complainant. There was no such deficiency in service on their part; therefore, the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable. They also took the preliminary objection that the District Forum at Fatehgarh Sahib had no territorial jurisdiction, as the policy was issued by Rajpura Divisional Office; which falls in district Patiala.
4.           Opposite party No.5, in its written reply, answered only the allegations made against it. It admitted that the vehicle was got financed from it by the complainant, after the same was purchased from PACE Auto, Patiala and that the same was got insured with opposite parties Nos. 1 to 4. The complainant has no cause of action against it and there was no such deficiency in service on its part. It prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
5.           The parties produced evidence in support of their respective averments before the District Forum, which after going through the same and hearing learned counsel on their behalf, allowed the complaint, vide aforesaid order.
6.           We have heard learned counsel for the appellants/ opposite parties Nos.1 to 3, as no one appeared on behalf of the complainant and service of opposite party No.4 was dispensed with. We have also carefully gone through the records of the District Forum.
7.           It has been submitted by the learned counsel for opposite parties Nos.1 to 3 that the District Forum committed an illegality, while recording the finding in favour of the complainant, that his claim could not have been repudiated, on the ground that there was no valid registration of the vehicle at the time of theft.  It could not have relied upon the judgment, mentioned in the order [I (2007) CPJ 391(Rajendra Prasad Tiwary Vs. New India Assurance Company & Others)], in view of the latest judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2014 (5) Recent Apex Judgments 199 (Narinder Singh Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Ors.), wherein the claim under the policy was repudiated, on the ground that at the time of accident, the vehicle was not registered and that repudiation was upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court. He further submitted that there was delay on the part of the complainant, in giving written intimation to the police regarding the theft and that the claim could have been validly repudiated on that ground also.  In these circumstances, the findings recorded by the District Forum cannot be sustained and are liable to be set aside. In support of that argument, he relied upon (2004) 8 SCC 644 (United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Harchand Rai Chandan Lal).
8.           The repudiation letter dated 20.09.2011 was proved on the record, as Ex.C-8. A perusal thereof shows that the claim made by the complainant was repudiated, on the ground that on the date of the theft, there was no valid registration certificate of the vehicle. His claim was never repudiated, on the ground that there was delay in giving the written intimation to the police regarding the theft of the vehicle. When opposite parties Nos.1 to 3 never intended to repudiate the claim of the complainant, on the ground of that late intimation to the police, such an argument cannot be advanced before us.
9.           The only question to be determined for the decision of the present appeal is, as to whether the claim of the complainant could have been repudiated, on the ground that there was no valid registration certificate of the vehicle at the time of accident?  Admittedly, the vehicle was purchased by the complainant on 25.01.2011. It is not the case of the complainant, nor any evidence was produced by him for proving that he had obtained the temporary Registration Certificate immediately after the purchase of the vehicle. On the other hand, the opposite parties proved on record the temporary certificate of registration, obtained by the complainant for this vehicle, as Ex.R-3. A perusal thereof shows that the same was obtained on 17.02.2011 and was valid till 17.03.2011. No evidence has been produced by the complainant that on the date of the theft, he was having any temporary certificate of registration or permanent certificate of registration. Thus, the vehicle was plied by him without a registration certificate.
10.           The District Forum relied upon Rajendra Prasad Tiwary’s case (supra), wherein it was held by the Jharkhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, that the registration of the vehicle was not mandatory for allowing the insurance claim, where the vehicle had been robbed, as such a registration can be obtained by paying the late fee.  It ignored the judgment of the Hon’ble National Commission in Aeroflot Soviet Airlines Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2006) (2) CPC 691], in which it was held that there was necessary requirement for valid registration of the vehicle for allowing of the insurance claim, by observing that the registration of the vehicle was required, only when the vehicle was brought on the road.
11.           The controversy has been set at rest by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Narinder Singh’s case (supra). In that case, the temporary registration granted in respect of the vehicle had expired before the date of the accident and permanent Registration Certificate had not been obtained. It was held therein that using a vehicle on the road, without registration, is not only an offence punishable under section 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act, but also a fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of the policy. In that case, the District Forum had allowed the complaint and had directed the insurance company to indemnify the complainant to the extent of 75%. Feeling aggrieved, the insurance company filed an appeal before the State Commission, which was allowed and complaint was dismissed. The complainant preferred revision petition before the Hon’ble National Commission, which was dismissed. The orders passed by the State Commission and Hon’ble National Commission were upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
12.           It may be said that this judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court was rendered in the case of the accident and not in case of theft. However, from the perusal of Section 39, which deals with necessity for registration of the vehicle, and Section 43, which deals with temporary registration of the vehicle, it becomes clear that the ratio of this judgment is to be applied even in the cases of theft of vehicles. Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act makes it mandatory to get the vehicle registered in accordance with Chapter-IV, before driving the same in any public place or in any other place and the registration mark is required to be displayed on the vehicle in the prescribed manner. Section 43 deals with the Temporary Registration of the vehicle, which is to be valid for a period not exceeding one month, and is renewable. Sub Section (2) thereof deals with the validity of the temporary registration and the proviso appended to it, is very relevant and the same is reproduced below:-

 

“Provided that where a motor vehicle so registered is a chassis to which a body has not been attached and the same is detained in a workshop beyond the said period of one month for being fitted with a body or any unforeseen circumstances beyond the control of the owner, the period may, on payment of such fees, if any, as may be prescribed, be extended by such further period or periods as the registering authority or other prescribed authority, as the case may be, may allow.”

         

When the renewal of the temporary registration number is mandatory for a vehicle, which was never taken on the road and the body thereof is to be prepared before taking the same on the road, it becomes very much clear that even when the vehicle is not taken on the road, even then temporary registration certificate is required, if not a permanent registration certificate. If at the time of theft, there is no such registration; the insurance company can well escape its liability to pay the insurance amount, by repudiating the claim on that ground. If there is any doubt regarding the application of this judgment in cases of theft, the same is removed by the recent judgment of the Hon’ble National Commission reported in I (2015) CPJ 220 (Saleena Rani Vs.  United India Insurance Company Ltd.  & Anr.).  In that case, Saleena Rani, complainant got her car insured with the opposite party-Insurance Company.  Temporary registration number was issued, which was valid from 09.06.2011 to 08.07.2011. On 05.05.2012, the car was taken to Delhi by her husband and was parked in front of guest house. On the next day, the car was found missing from that place. The claim was lodged by the complainant, which was repudiated by the insurance company, on the ground that the car in question was not registered with any Registering Authority on the date of theft.  After interpreting the above said Sections 39 and 43 of the Motor Vehicles Act, it was held by the Hon’ble National Commission, that where the car had been used by the complainant as also by her husband, wholly and completely in violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 39, the insurance company could have repudiated the claim on that ground legally and validly. The Hon’ble National Commission relied upon Narinder Singh’s case (supra), while recording that finding.

13.           Thus, opposite parties Nos.1 to 3 validly repudiated the claim of the complainant and the District Forum committed an illegality, while holding to the contrary. Such a finding cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside.
14.           In the result, the appeal is allowed, the order of the District Forum is set aside and the complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed.
15.           The sum of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing of the appeal along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to appellant No.1 by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days of the sending of certified copy of the order to them.
16.           The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.

 

 

                                                          (JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH)

                                                                         PRESIDENT

                                                        

 

                                                           (VINOD KUMAR GUPTA)

                                                                          MEMBER

                                                         

                                                        (MRS. SURINDER PAL KAUR)

January 30, 2015                                         MEMBER

(Gurmeet S)