STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA
First Appeal No.276 of 2021
Date of Institution: 18.10.2021
Date of Decision: 11.02.2022
Deepak aged 35 years son of Shri Raj Kumar, resident of village Bucholi, Tehsil and District Mahendergarh.
….Appellant
Versus
1. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. having its registered office at 3rd Floor, Saraswati Mandir (Marathi Granth Sangrah) opposite Zila Parishad Office, Subhash Road, Thane, Maharashtra through its authorized representative.
2. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. having its branch office at Mahendergarh Road, Narnaul, Tehsil Narnaul, District Mahendergarh through its Branch Manager/ Agent Dewan Fourwheels Pvt. Ltd. at same address.
……Respondents
CORAM: Mr.A S Narang, Judicial Member.
Mr. Suresh Chander Kaushik, Member.
Present:- Mr. Mukesh Yadav, counsel for the appellant.
O R D E R
A.S. NARANG, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
(The matter has been heard through virtual hearing).
Mr. Deepak (Appellant) has filed this appeal against the order dated 17.09.2021, whereby the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mahendergarh at Narnaul (“DCDRC”) has dismissed his complaint against the Oriental Insurance Company Limited & Another (Respondents).
2. On 29.08.2019, appellant filed the complaint before DCDRC, Mahendergarh at Narnaul against the respondents with the averments that he is the owner of vehicle Mahindra Bolera bearing Temporary Registration No.HR-99-ACV (TEMP), which he had got insured with respondent No.1 through respondent No.2. Respondent had issued the insurance policy bearing No.131400/31/2019/M1BL/24680, which was effective from 10.07.2018 to 09.07. 2019. He had engaged Satish Kumar S/o Sh. Dharambir, resident of village Bucholi as driver on this vehicle. On 12.09.2018, he and Satish Kumar had gone to village Bhojawas to see a Ragini Competition. They had parked the vehicle near the venue. However, when they returned after attending the Ragini Competition, they found the vehicle missing. They searched the vehicle, but could not recover the same. In fact, someone stole the vehicle. Satish Kumar registered FIR No.303 dated 14.09.2018 under Section 379 IPC with the Police Station, Nangal Chaudhary in respect of this incident. Complainant alleged that he informed the respondents about the theft. Respondents appointed surveyor. He also lodged a claim with the insurance company. Police tried its best to trace the vehicle. However, it could not recovered. Ultimately, on 08.03.2019, the police submitted untrace report in the Court, which was accepted. He lodged an insurance claim with the respondents. However, respondents did not respond to the same. On 10.06.2019, he also issued a legal notice. However, the respondents did not pay him the claim. On these facts he filed the complaint before the DCDRC, Mahendergarh at Narnaul and claimed Rs.7,46,700/- as insured value of the vehicle and another sum of Rs.8,00,000/- on account of loss of income due to theft of vehicle.
3. Respondents in the written reply contested the claim of the appellant. They admitted that the vehicle in question was insured with them. They denied that the vehicle was stolen. They also denied that any FIR was registered in respect of this vehicle. Respondents also alleged that since the vehicle was not registered with the Registering Authority, accordingly they are not liable to pay the claim. Respondents alleged that the complaint be dismissed.
4. Complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit (Ex.CW/A) and copy of legal notice and postal receipts (Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-3) and documents copy of FIR No.303 dated 14.09.2018 (Annexure C-4), copy of Untrace Report and Final Report U/s 173 Cr.P.C. (Annexure C-5 & Annexure C-6), copy of Form No.22 (Annexure C-7), copy of Temporary Certificate of Registration (Annexure C-8), copy of Insurance Policy (Annexure C-9), copy of Tax Invoice (Annexure C-10), copy of Sales Certificate (Annexure C-11), copy of Driving License of Satish Kumar (Annexure C-12).
5. On the other hand, respondents tendered in evidence affidavit of Mr. P.S. Dishodhiya, Sr. Divisional Manager, OIC, Rohtak (Ex.RW/A) and copy of Insurance Policy (Ex.R-1).
6. After hearing the parties and perusing the evidence on the record, vide impugned order dated 17.09.2019, the DCDRC, Mahendergarh at Narnaul dismissed the complaint and held that the insurance policy was effective from 09.07.2018 to 09.07.2019. Temporary Registration Certificate (Ex.C-8) was valid from 10.07.2018 to 09.08.2018. However, the vehicle was stolen on 12.09.2018. On the date of theft, vehicle was not registered. Relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as “Narinder Singh Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.” 2014 (4) RCR (Civil) 272, Mahendergarh at Narnaul, DCDRC dismissed the complaint.
7. Aggrieved by the order passed by the DCDRC, Mahendergarh at Narnaul, appellant has filed this appeal.
8. We have heard Mr. Mukesh Yadav, counsel for the appellant.
9. Assailing the impugned order, Mr. Mukesh Yadav, counsel for the appellant has submitted that the DCDRC, Mahendergarh at Narnaul has not appraised the evidence on the record properly. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the Temporary Registration was valid up to 09.08.2018. The vehicle was stolen on 12.09.2018. The theft had taken place only a month after the date, the Temporary Registration of the vehicle had expired. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondents did not bring this fact to the notice of the appellant that the registration of the vehicle was necessary to claim the insurance amount. In these circumstances, the DCDRC should have allowed the insurance claim.
10. We have perused the impugned order and considered the contentions canvassed at the bar on behalf of the appellant. However, we are of the considered view that there is no merit in the present appeal. Admittedly, the vehicle was not registered with the Registration Authority on the day of theft. This amounts to fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. In similar circumstances Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as “United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Sushil Kumar Godara”, Civil Appeal No.5887 of 2021, decided on 30.09.2021, held that the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the insured for the theft of the insured vehicle, if on the date of theft the insured vehicle was not registered with the Registration Authority. Hon’ble Supreme Court also held that this amounts to fundamental breach of terms and conditions of the policy and insurance company is entitled to repudiate the claim. Accordingly, we hereby dismiss the present appeal. A copy of this order be sent to the DCDRF, Mahendergarh at Narnaul as well as to the parties.
Pronounced in open court.
February 11th, 2022 Suresh Chander Kaushik A S Narang Member Judicial Member
Addl. Bench Addl. Bench
R.K
