Haryana

StateCommission

A/585/2016

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

NAVEEN KUMAR - Opp.Party(s)

R.C.GUPTA

13 Jan 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      585 of 2016

Date of Institution:      29.06.2016

Date of Decision :      13.01.2017

 

National Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office, Delhi Rohtak Road, Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar, through its Divisional Manager, now through its authorised signatory of Regional Office, SCO No.332-334, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh.

                                      Appellant-Opposite Party No.1

Versus

 

1.      Naveen Kumar s/o Sh. Mahavir, Resident of Village Gochhi, Tehsil Beri, District Jhajjar.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

2.      Hinduja Leyland Finance, Registered Office at No.1, Sardar Patel Road, Guindy, Chennai-600003 through its Manager.

Respondent-Opposite Party No.2

 

 

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Argued by:          Shri D.C. Kumar, Advocate appearing on behalf of Shri R.C. Gupta, Advocate for appellant.

                             Shri Sikander Bakshi, Advocate for respondent No.1.

                             Respondent No.2 performa.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

          National Insurance Company Limited (for short ‘the Insurance Company’)-Opposite Party No.1, is in appeal against the order dated May 6^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jhajjar (for short ‘the District Forum’) whereby complaint filed by Naveen Kumar-complainant (respondent No.1 herein) seeking benefits of insurance in respect of his vehicle Cruiser Classic BS-III, which was stolen during the subsistence of the Insurance Policy, was accepted. The operative part of the order is reproduced as under:-

“….We, therefore, direct the respondent No.1 to make the payment of claim/insured declared value of Rs.6,02,300/- to the complainant along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of theft i.e. 3.9.2012 till realization of final payment to the complainant subject to transfer of subrogation letter in the name of respondent company by the complainant. The complainant is also entitled for a sum of Rs.5500/- on account of litigation expenses for the present unwanted and unwarranted litigation only due to the deficiency in service on the part of the respondent No.1. The complaint stands disposed of accordingly.”    

2.                Vehicle bearing temporary registration No.HR-99-MH (Temp)-4100 was insured with the appellant-Insurance Company vide Insurance Cover Note (Exhibit P-4) for the period July 9^th, 2012 to July 8^th, 2013 for Rs.6,02,300/-. It was stolen on September 3^rd, 2012 in the area of Sector-63, Noida. First Information Report (FIR) Exhibit (P-5) was registered in Police Station Noida Sector-58, District Gautam Buddha Nagar. The Insurance Company was informed. Claim being filed, the Insurance Company vide letter dated July 31^st, 2013 (Exhibit P-7) repudiated the same on the ground that on the date of theft the vehicle was not registered with the concerned registering authority and as such the complainant violated the provisions of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. Aggrieved thereof, the complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

3.                The Insurance Company/appellant contested complaint by filing written version and while reiterating the fact stated in the repudiation letter (Exhibit P-7) prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                The District Forum vide impugned order allowed complaint and directed the appellant-Insurance Company as detailed in paragraph No.1 of this order.  Hence appeal.

5.               Counsel for the parties have been heard. File perused.

6.                The solitary contention raised on behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company is that on the date of theft, the vehicle was not registered with the registering authority and since the complainant violated the provision of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act, he is not entitled for the benefits of insurance.

7.                Indisputably, the complainant had purchased the vehicle from Bimla Automobiles on July 10^th, 2012 vide Invoice Exhibit P-1 and Sale Certificate Exhibit P-2. Temporary Registration No.HR-99-MH (Temp)-4100 was allotted vide Certificate Exhibit P-3, which was valid from 10.07.2012 to 09.08.2012.

8.                The issue for consideration is, as to whether the complainant is entitled to the benefits of insurance or not despite not getting vehicle registered?

9.                As per provisions of Section 40 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the complainant was under an obligation to apply for permanent registration of the vehicle within one month, that is, the period which was mentioned in the temporary registration certificate (Exhibit P-3). 10.          Undisputedly, the vehicle was being driven on the date of theft without any valid registration as contemplated under the provisions of Section 39 and Section 43 of Motor Vehicles Act. Section 39 and Section 43 which are relevant are extracted herein below:-

“39.   Necessity for registration.—No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this Chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner:

Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a motor vehicle in possession of a dealer subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government.

 

"43.   Temporary registration.—(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 40 the owner of a motor vehicle may apply to any registering authority or other prescribed authority to have the vehicle temporarily registered in the prescribed manner and for the issue in the prescribed manner of a temporary certificate of registration and a temporary registration mark."

(2) A registration made under this section shall be valid only for a period not exceeding one month, and shall not be renewable:

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.

(3) In a case where the motor vehicle is held under hire-purchase agreement, lease or hypothecation, the registering authority or other prescribed authority shall issue a temporary certificate of registration of such vehicle, which shall incorporate legibly and prominently the full name and address of the person with whom such agreement has been entered into by the owner.”

 

11.              A bare perusal of Section 39 reproduced above clearly depicts that that no person shall drive the motor vehicle in any public place without any valid registration granted by the registering authority in accordance with the provisions of the Act.  However, as per Section 43, the owner of the vehicle may apply to the registering authority for permanent registration within the period for which temporary registration is granted by the authority and the same shall be valid only for a period not exceeding one month.

12.              Indisputably, the temporary registration number was granted in respect of the vehicle of the complainant on 10.07.2012 and had expired on 09.08.2012 whereas the vehicle was stolen on 03.09.2012. Therefore, on the day of theft the vehicle was without any registration. No evidence has been produced by the complainant to show that before or after 09.08.2012, when the period of temporary registration expired, the complainant either applied for permanent registration as contemplated under Section 39 of the Act or made any application for extension of period of temporary registration on the ground of some special reasons.  In view of this, using the vehicle in question on the public road without any registration was not only an offence punishable under Section 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act but also a fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of policy contract.

13.              Hon’ble Supreme Court in Narinder Singh versus New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Ors. IV(2014) CPJ 11 (SC), held the owner not entitled for any benefits of insurance because the vehicle was being plied without proper registration certificate.

14.              Hon’ble Supreme Court in BHS Industries versus Export Credit Guarantee Corp.& anr., III(2015) CPJ 1 (SC), held that the insurance policy has to be strictly construed and it has to be read as a whole and nothing should be added or subtracted.

15.              In Export Credit Guarantee Corpn. of India Ltd. versus Garg Sons International, II(2013) CPJ 1 (SC) Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under:-

“8.     It is a settled legal proposition that while construing the terms of a contract of insurance, the words used therein must be given paramount importance, and it is not open for the Court to add, delete or substitute any words. It is also well settled, that since upon issuance of an insurance policy, the insurer undertakes to indemnify the loss suffered by the insured on account of risks covered by the policy, its terms have to be strictly construed in order to determine the extent of the liability of the insurer. Therefore, the endeavour of the Court should always be to interpret the words used in the contract in the manner that will best express the intention of the parties. (Vide: M/s. Suraj Mal Ram Niwas Oil Mills (P) Ltd. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., VIII(2010) SLT 375=IV(2010) ACC 653 (SC)=IV (2010) CPJ 38 (SC)=(2010) 10 SCC 567]

“9.     The insured cannot claim anything more than what is covered by the insurance policy. “……….the terms of the contract have to be construed strictly, without altering the nature of the contract as the same may affect the interests of the parties adversely”. The clauses of an insurance policy have to be read as they are………..Consequently, the terms of the insurance policy, that fix the responsibility of the Insurance Company must also be read strictly. The contract must be read as a whole and every attempt should be made to harmonize the terms thereof, keeping in mind that the rule of contra proferentem does not apply in case of commercial contract, for the reason that a clause in a commercial contract is bilateral and has mutually been agreed upon.”

16.              Keeping in view the facts of the case and the legal position enunciated above, it is held that the complainant is not entitled for the benefits of insurance because he was plying the vehicle without proper registration and against the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act and thus violated the terms and conditions of the policy. The District Forum fell in error in allowing the complaint and as such the impugned order cannot be allowed to sustain. 

17.              Accordingly, the appeal is accepted, the impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.

18.              The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced 13.01.2017

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL