Haryana

StateCommission

A/366/2016

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

KARNAIL SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

J.P.NAHAR

05 Dec 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  : 366 of 2016

Date of Institution: 26.04.2016

Date of Decision : 05.12.2016

 

National Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office New Fountain Chowk, Workshop Road, Yamuna Nagar, Tehsil Jagadhari, Distt. Yamuna Nagar.

Now through its authorised signatory Archna Aggarwal, Assistant Manager, Regional Office SCO No. 332-334, Sector 34A, Chandigarh

                                      Appellant-Opposite Party

 Versus

 

Karnail Singh aged about 45 years son of Sh. Bachan  Singh, House No. 1147, Sector-17, HUDA, Jagadhari, Tehsil Jagadhari, Distt. Yamuna Nagar.

Respondent-Complainant

 

 

 

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Argued by:          Sh. J.P. Nahar, Advocate for the appellant.

(Service of Respondent already effected vide order dated 18.07.2016).

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH, J (ORAL)

 

          By filing the present appeal, National Insurance Company Limited-opposite party (for short, ‘Insurance Company’) has challenged the order dated  February 26^th, 2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Yamuna Nagar (in short, ‘District Forum’) whereby complaint filed by Karnail Singh-complainant was allowed. Operative part of the order is reproduced as under:-

“15. Resultantly, we partly allow the complaint of complainant and direct the OP Insurance Company to pay the insured amount of Rs.37,288/- to the complainant till its realization and further to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- as litigation expenses.”

  2.    On February 19^th, 2010 the complainant purchased motorcycle Hero Honda Splendor make. The motorcycle was insured with the Insurance Company for the period February 19^th, 2010 to February 18^th, 2011.  The Insured Declared Value (IDV) was Rs.37,288/-.  On November 23^rd, 2010 the motorcycle was stolen.  First Information Report No. 578 dated November 24^th, 2010 was registered in Police Station Yamuna Nagar City.  The Insurance Company was also informed. The claim submitted by the complainant was repudiated by the Insurance Company. Hence, the complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Forum.

3.      Insurance Company, in its written version, pleaded that at the time of incident, the complainant was plying the motorcycle without getting it registered with the office of Registering Authority even after 8 months of its purchase. Thus, the complainant was not entitled to the benefits of insurance.  

4.      Admittedly, the motorcycle was purchased on February 19^th, 2010 and stolen on November 23^rd, 2010.  It was being driven without any valid registration on the date of incident 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.

5.      In view of the above, it is held that the Insurance Company rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant.  District Forum fell in error in allowing the complaint and as such, the impugned order cannot be allowed to sustain.  The appeal is accepted, impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed. 

6.      The statutory amount of Rs. 25000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.

 

Announced 05.12.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

UK