BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.401 of 2014
Date of Instt. 14.11.2014
Date of Decision :04.05.2015
Gurvinder Singh aged about 32 years son of Jagdish Singh R/o 601/9m Centre Town, Jalandhar.
..........Complainant
Versus
1. National Insurance Company Ltd, D.O.-II, 20, GT Road, Panesar Complex, Jalandhar through its Manager.
2. National Insurance Company Ltd, Regional Office at SCO 332-334, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh through its Manager/Authorized Representative.
3. National Insurance Company Ltd, Registered Office At 3, Middleton Street, Calcutta-700071 through its General Manager/Authorized Representative.
.........Opposite parties
Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)
Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)
Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)
Present: Sh.Naveen Chadha Adv., counsel for complainant.
Sh.Raman Sharma Adv., counsel for opposite parties.
Order
J.S Bhatia (President)
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties on the averments that the complainant purchased a vehicle/car Mahindra Bolero make BOL SLX 2 WD 7STR of pearl white colour. The above said vehicle/car was stolen by someone on 21.7.2012 from outside the house of the complainant. Then the complainant lodged FIR No.l00 dated 25.7.2012 under section 379 of IPC at PS Div No.4, Jalandhar and as per the investigation the said stolen vehicle/car was not found and thereafter the said case became untraced by the police. The complainant got insured his above said vehicle/car with the opposite parties for sum insured for Rs.6,15,600/- and theft of the vehicle was also covered/included under the insurance policy of opposite parties vide policy No.404300/31/11/6100002203 (Agency No.32061/15906). The complainant lodged his claim with the opposite parties but the opposite parties have not given the claim as assured by them as per the above said insurance policy, despite visits and requests made by the complainant. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite party insurance company to pay the price i.e IDV of the insured vehicle to him alongwith interest. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.
2. Upon notice opposite parties appeared and filed a written reply, inter-alia, pleading that the theft took place on 21.7.2012 and as per documents supplied by the complainant, the vehicle was without registration number at the time of theft violating the Motor Vehicle Act and policy terms and conditions. Even the temporary registration No.PB-07/N/Temp/5181 allotted to the vehicle for the period 9.5.2011 to 8.6.2011 had expired. The vehicle was got registered by the complainant after the theft and the permanent registration number allotted to the car is PB-08-CB-2744 and the date of registration as per the registration certificate is 26.7.2012. Vide letter dated 11.12.2012 opposite parties informed the complainant that his claim is not maintainable as the vehicle was not registered at the time of loss in violation of section 39 of Motor Vehicle Act and sought any counter plea from complainant failing which the claim shall be repudiated. The complainant vide letter dated 9.7.2013 explained the non registration of vehicle in time and offered to accept 75% of the insured amount. Opposite party offered the complainant for settling the claim at 50% on non standard basis for Rs.3,06,800/- vide letter dated 25.3.2014 subject to furnishing of registration certificate duly transferred in the name of National Insurance Company Limited with the endorsement of fact of theft in registration certificate, power of attorney in favour of company, letter of subrogation, fresh NCRB report and discharge voucher jointly signed by the complainant and financier, but the complainant did not respond despite subsequent letters dated 11.6.2014, 17.7.2014 as such claim file of complainant was closed as "No Claim" vide letter dated 27.8.2014 on the ground that no response even after three reminders. However, it is pertinent to mention the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide judgment dated 4.9.2014 in SLP (Civil) No.26308 of 2013 titled Narinder Singh Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited, has held that use of vehicle on the public road without any registration is not only an offence punishable under section 192 of the Motor Vehicle Act but also a fundamental breach of terms and conditions of the policy contract as such the claims in case of use of vehicle without registration are not payable and upheld the orders passed by the State Commission and National Commission. So, in view of the above judgment, through the reply to legal notice, the offer to settle the claim at 50% of insured amount on non standard basis was withdrawn. They denied other material averments of the complainant.
3. In support of his complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C9 and closed evidence
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties has tendered affidavit Ex.OA alongwith copies of documents Ex.O1 to Ex.O9 and evidence of opposite parties closed by order.
5. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsels for the parties.
The facts involved in the present case are not much disputed. The insured vehicle/car of the complainant was stolen on 21.7.2012. He lodged the claim with the opposite party insurance company but opposite party insurance company has not paid any claim amount to him. According to the opposite parties on the date of theft, the car was not having certificate of registration and even temporary certificate of registration has expired and as such the claim is not payable. Ex.C1 is temporary certificate of registration. It was valid upto 8.6.2011. Ex.C2 is permanent of certificate of registration and from the perusal of the same, it is evident that the car/vehicle in question was registered on 26.7.2012 According to the own version of the complainant, the car was stolen on 21.7.2012. So on the date of theft, the car was not having any valid certificate of registration. In Narinder Singh Vs New India Assurance Company Ltd & others, 2014(4) CLT 1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that Using a vehicle on the public road without registration is not only an offence punishable under section 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act but also a fundamental breach of terms and conditions of the policy contract.
7. In Saleena Rani Vs United India Insurance Co.Ltd & others, Revision Petition No.4235 of 2014 decided on 8.12.2014, the Hon'ble National Commission has held as under:-
"In the instant case, as stated above, temporary registration certificate of the car, in question, expired on 8.7.2011. There is nothing on the record, that immediately thereafter, the complainant applied for registration of the vehicle, with the Registering Authority. As stated above, till the date of theft of the car, in question, it had not been registered with the Registering Authority. The car, in question, was thus, being used without any valid registration certificate, and had been taken to New Delhi, where from it was stolen. Thus, the car was being used by the complainant, as also her husband, wholly and completely in violation of the mandatory provisions of section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. A similar question fell for decision in Narinder Singh's case (supra). The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the aforesaid case, laid down the principle of law, to the effect that if the vehicle was being used without valid registering certificate, and damage to the same or loss thereof occurred, then the insurance company could legally and validly repudiate the claim of the insured, in toto. In Kaushalendra Kumar
Mishra's case (supra), it was also held that use of the vehicle, in violation of law itself will take it beyond the protection of the policy. In Bharti Axa General Insurance Co.Ltd's case (supra), it was also held that if the loss of the vehicle occurs, when it was being used, in violation of the mandatory provisions of law, the insurer will be justified to repudiate the claim of the insured. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, is fully applicable to the facts of the instant case. Similarly, the vehicle, in question, was being used, by the husband of the complainant, in violation of the mandatory provisions of section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, at the time of theft thereof, the insurer was justified in legally and validly repudiating the claim of the complainant. There was, therefore, no deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the opposite party No.1, in repudiating the claim of the complainant. The findings of the District Forum, to the contrary, being incorrect, are reversed".
8. In the present case as already discussed above on the date of theft the complainant was not having valid certificate of registration and brining the car/vehicle on road without certificate of registration not only constitute an offence under the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act but it also constitute breach of condition of the policy. So in the above circumstances, the complainant is not entitled to the claim amount.
9. In view of above discussion, we hold that there is no merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia
4.5.2015 Member Member President
