Haryana

StateCommission

A/1220/2016

NARESH PANCHAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

IFFCO TOKIO GEN.INSURANCE CO. - Opp.Party(s)

ABHIMANYU ANTIL

24 Jan 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  : 1220 of 2016

Date of Institution: 14.12.2016

Date of Decision : 24.01.2017

 

Naresh Panchal son of Shri Tilak Ram, resident of Village and Post Office Uchani, Post Office Karan Lake, District Karnal.

                                      Appellant-Complainant

 Versus

 

IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited, HAFED Building, First Floor, Sector 12, Urban Estate, Karnal through its Manager.

Respondent-Complainant

 

 

 

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Argued by:          Shri Abhimanyu Antil, Advocate for the appellant.

 

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH, J (ORAL)

 

          By filing the present appeal, Naresh Panchal-complainant has challenged the order dated November 08^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karnal (in short, ‘District Forum’) whereby complaint was dismissed.

2.      The complainant purchased Mobile Crane having temporary registration No.HP12T-0916. The Mobile Crane was insured with IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited-opposite party (for short, ‘Insurance Company’) for the period January 11^th, 2014 to January 10^th, 2015. On the intervening night of February 17^th/18^th, 2014 the Mobile Crane met with accident and was damaged. The Insurance Company was also informed. The claim submitted by the complainant was repudiated by the Insurance Company on the ground of non registration of vehicle after expiry of period of temporary registration. Hence, the complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Forum.

3.      Admittedly, the Mobile Crane was purchased on January 11^th, 2014 and met with an accident on the intervening night of February 17^th/18^th, 2014.  It was being driven without any valid registration as contemplated under the provisions of Section 39 and 43 of Motor Vehicles Act.  In Narinder Singh Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited and others, Civil Appeal No.8463 of 2014 decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court on September 4^th, 2014 vehicle was granted temporary registration for one month, which expired on January 11^th, 2016.  The vehicle met with an accident on February, 02^nd, 2016, that is, after 22 days on expiry of temporary registration. Hon’ble Supreme Court held that using a vehicle on the public road without any 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 contract.

4.      In view of the above, it is held that the Insurance Company rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant.  The impugned order does not call for any interference. Hence, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits.

 

Announced 24.01.2017

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

UK