Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/1117/2014

Sh. Dinesh Kumar Ydav S/o Sh. Omprakash Yadav - Complainant(s)

Versus

Natiosnal Ina. Co.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

D.M. Mathur

18 Aug 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

APPEAL NO: 1117 /2014

 

Dinesh Kumar Yadav s/oOmprakash Yadav r/o 35, Radha Vihar, Sheopur Road, Pratap Nagar, Sanganer,Jaipur.

Vs.

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Regd.office- 3, Middleton Street, Kolkatta & ors.

 

 

APPEAL NO: 59/2015

 

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Regd.office- 3, Middleton Street, Kolkatta & ors.

Vs.

Dinesh Kumar Yadav s/oOmprakash Yadav r/o 35, Radha Vihar, Sheopur Road, Pratap Nagar, Sanganer,Jaipur.

 

 

Date of Order 18.8.2015

 

 

 

2

 

Before:

 

Hon'ble Mr.Vinay Kumar Chawla-Presiding Member

Mr.Liyakat Ali -Member

Mrs.Sunita Ranka-Member

 

Mr. D.M.Mathur counsel for the complainant Dinesh Kumar Yadav

Mr.Prashant Mantri counsel for the Insurance Company

 

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION

 

Both these appeals arise out of the judgment passed by the learned DCF Jaipur 2^nd dated 28.11.2014.

 

Brief facts giving rise to these appeals are that the complainant had taken a insurance of his car from the opposite party( insurance company). This car was registered as a taxi and the car was issued a national permit for five years which has been produced as Anx.11. It is alleged that on 12.10.2011 the complainant was to go to Delhi for appearing in a court for

 

3

 

evidence and he travelled through this car and this car was stolen when it was parked outside a restaurant. The theft claim of the car was repudiated on the ground that this car had no valid permit on 12.10.2011 for travelling to Delhi. The learned DCF however, accepted the contention of the insurance company that the car was being travelled without legal permit. Hence, it allowed sub-standard claim of IDV of the car.

 

The complainant has filed Appeal No. 1117/2014 against this judgment. The complainant is aggrieved that he has been allowed only sub-standard claim. Appeal No. 59/2015 has been filed by the insurance company challenging the findings of the learned DCF.

 

The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that at the time of incident the car was not used for hire. The complainant who is himself is the owner and went to Delhi for appearing in a court case and travelled by this car. When he had parked his car outside a restaurant and went for taking lunch during that period the car was stolen. Hence, at the time of incident the car was not used for hire. He has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble National Commission reported in IV

 

4

 

(2012) CPJ 580 (NC) (National Insurance Co. Vs. Mayur Raj Singh ) in which in similar facts the Hon'ble National Commission held that the insurance company cannot repudiate the claim in toto in case of loss of vehicle due to theft.

 

The learned counsel for the insurance company has relied on various judgments of the Hon'ble National Commission. In III (2014) CPJ 16 )NC) ( Kalyan Singh Chauhan Vs. National Insurance Co. ) it was held that no transport vehicle can be used on any public place without valid permit. Thus, by permitting the vehicle to be driven without permit is violation of the terms of the policy and repudiation was held justified.

 

In I (2013) CPJ 542 (NC) ( Manoj Banerjee Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. ) the repudiation of the claim was held to be justified on the ground that the complainant had no valid permit to enter into Meghalaya where the vehicle had met with an accident.

 

The learned counsel for the insurance company has also argued that there is no force in the argument of the complainant that at the time of incident the vehicle was not used for hire and

 

5

 

at the same time it was parked outside the restaurant and was not travelling. The learned counsel for the insurance company has cited the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in which the use of vehicle has been explained and it has been held that even parking the vehicle on the road and halting for some time in the way would also amount to the use of vehicle.

 

The learned counsel for the complainant has further argued that the citation relied upon by the insurance company relates to the accident cases where the breach of condition was held to be fundamental. He has submitted that the present case is a theft case of a vehicle and has argued that in theft cases the breach of conditions are not germane. He has further submitted that as per Anx. 11 the car had a valid permit for five years.

 

We have considered the arguments of the learned counsels. Though this car had been granted a national permit for five years but every time when the car travelled outside Rajasthan, it had to obtain authorization from the RTO and this authorization was obtained by the complainant on 26.10.2009 and it had expired on 25.10.2010. The incident happened on 12.10.2011. Thus, the authorization has expired on 25.10.2010.

 

6

 

Thus, on 12.10.2011 this car had no authorization under the national permit to travel outside Rajasthan.

 

The learned counsel for the company has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble National Commission in Kalyan Singh Chauhan and Manoj Banerjee's case. In these cases the vehicle had met with an accident while the complainant has relied on the judgment of Mayur Raj Singh's case. The facts in this case are similar. In this case the complainant had left the vehicle unattended in an isolated place and had no permit to enter the Rajasthan. In that case repudiation of claim in toto was held to be unjustified. The Hon'ble National Commission also relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nitin Khandelwal's case (IV (2008) CPJ 1 SC ) where it was held that breach of condition in theft cases is not germane and the loss should be settled on non-standard basis. After arguments the learned counsel for the insurance company cited another judgment of Hon'ble National Commission II (2013) CPJ 398 (NC) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rajesh Yadav in which Hon'ble National Commission held that having permit for a particular place is a necessary condition and its violation does not lead the complainant to have the compensation on non-standard basis. We have considered the judgments submitted by

7

 

both the parties. Both the judgments in Rajesh Yadav case and Mayur Raj Singh case were decided by the bench headed by some Presiding Member. In Rajesh Yadav case the second ground for rejection of complaint was delay in intimation. We would follow the judgment in Mayur Raj Singh's case earlier decided by Hon'ble National Commission.

 

In view of the above discussions, we find that there is no force in these appeals. The complainant having committed breach of conditions of the policy is entitled only for non-standard claim and the insurance company is not justified in repudiating the claim in toto. Hence, both these appeals are hereby dismissed.

 

 

(Sunita Ranka) (Liyakat Ali) (Vinay Kumar Chawla)

Member Member Presiding Member

 

 

nm