Haryana

StateCommission

A/788/2015

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SURENDER SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

B.S.TAUNQUE

05 Oct 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :     788 of 2015

Date of Institution:     17.09.2015

Date of Decision :      05.10.2016

 

1.     National Insurance Company Limited, Regional Office-2, SCO No.337-340, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh through its Manager.

2.     National Insurance Company Limited, through its Senior Divisional Manager, Divisional Office-II, 2^nd Floor, Narain Complex, Civil Road, Rohtak-124001.

                                      Appellants-Opposite Parties

Versus

 

Surender Singh s/o Sh. Ramesh Chander, Resident of Village Ghatoli Pana Bhatera District Jhajjar.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

 

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Argued by:          Shri B.S. Taunque, Advocate for appellants.

                             None for respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

          This appeal of Opposite Parties’ is directed against the order dated August 11^th, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jhajjar (for short ‘the District Forum’) in Complaint No.129 of 2014.

2.                Surender Singh-complainant/respondent, filed complaint with the allegations that he purchased a new car-Tata Indica, bearing registration No.HR-99-LF (Temp.)-4966, on 15^th April, 2013. It was registered with the Registering Authority, Bahadurgarh vide Registration No.HR-63BT-8168 and was insured with National Insurance Company Limited (for short ‘the Insurance Company’)-Opposite Party/appellants, for the period 15^th April 2013 to 14^th April, 2014, vide Insurance Policy Exhibit R-6. On 4^th May, 2013, the car met with an accident in the area of Silani Gate, Jhajjar and suffered damage. The complainant informed the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company appointed surveyor who assessed the loss at Rs.1,06,813/-. The complainant alleged to have incurred the amount of Rs1,50,828/- on the repair of his vehicle from Raj Motors, Rohtak, vide bill Exhibit P-8. Claim being lodged, the Insurance Company repudiated the claim vide letter dated 14^th October, 2013 (Exhibit P-11), which reads as under:-

“This has reference to your claim settlement of Vehicle Number HR-63B-8168 at the time of accident there was no permit nor any fitness of the vehicle. So the competent authority has repudiated your claim on violation of policy conditions. This is for your information.”

3.                Hence, complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed before the District Forum.

4.                The Insurance Company contested complaint by filing written version while reiterating the fact stated in the repudiation letter. It was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

5.                After evaluating the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum vide impugned order allowed complaint and directed the Insurance Company to pay Rs.1,50,828/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of accident, that is, 4^th May, 2013 till its realization besides Rs.2,000/- litigation expenses.

6.                It is not disputed that the vehicle being new one, was purchased on 15^th April, 2013. It is also not in dispute that the vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company vide Registration Certificate Exhibit R-6.  Temporary Registration (Exhibit P-4) was issued on 15^th April, 2013 itself and was valid upto 14^th May, 2013. Tax Invoice (Exhibit P-5) and Sale Certificate (Exhibit P-6) have been produced on the record. The vehicle was allotted permanent registration number on 7^th May, 2013.Contract Carriage Permit (Exhibit P-9) was issued by Government of Haryana vide No.94/Taxi/2013. National Permit (Exhibit P-10) was issued on 27^th May, 2013 and valid upto 6^th May, 2014. Copy of Driving Licence (Exhibit P-12) in the name of Som Pal son of Fateh Singh is on the file.

7.                The only argument raised is that the complainant did not produce Fitness Certificate and the State Carriage Permit of the vehicle. The Insurance Company only has placed on the file National Permit (Exhibit R-3). The complainant has produced State Carriage Permit (Exhibit P-9) issued by Regional Transport Authority, Jhajjar; it was valid up to 6^th May, 2018. The date of issue of the permit is not legible. The accident took place within the State of Haryana. Onus was upon the Insurance Company to prove what was the date of issue of State Carriage Permit. It bears No.94/Taxi/2013. No presumption can be drawn at the instance of Insurance Company that since the date of issue of permit is not legible, therefore, it should be presumed to have been issued after accident. Even otherwise, on the date of accident, the vehicle has not been put to use and it was not being plied as taxi.

8.                Section 56 and Section 66 of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read as under:-

“56.   Certificate of fitness of transport vehicles. –

(1) Subject to the provisions of section 59 and 60, a transport vehicle shall not be deemed to be validly registered for the purposes of section 39, unless it carries a certificate of fitness in such form containing such particulars and information as may be prescribed by the Central Government, issued by the prescribed authority, or by an  uthorized testing station mentioned in sub-section (2), to the effect that the vehicle complies for the time being with all the requirements of this Act and the rules made thereunder.

Provided that where the prescribed authority or the “authorized testing station” refuses to issue such certificate, it shall supply the owner of the vehicle with its reasons in writing for such refusal.

(2) The “authorized testing station” referred to in sub-section (1) means a vehicle service station or public or private garage which the State Government, having regard to the experience, training and ability of the operator of such station or garage and the testing equipment and the testing personnel therein, may specify in accordance with the rules made by the Central Government for regulation and control of such station or garages.

(3) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (4), a certificate of fitness shall remain effective for such period as may be prescribed by the Central Government having regard to the object of this Act.

(4) The prescribed authority may for reasons to be recorded in writing cancel a certificate of fitness at any time, if satisfied that the vehicle to which it relates no longer complies with all the requirements of this Act and the rules made thereunder; and on such cancellation the certificate of registration of the vehicle and any permit granted in respect of the vehicle under Chapter V shall be deemed to be suspended until a new certificate of fitness has been obtained:

[Provided that no such cancellation shall be made by the prescribed authority unless such prescribed authority holds such technical qualification as may be prescribed or where the prescribed authority does not hold such technical qualification on the basis of the report of an officer having such qualification.]

(5) A certificate of fitness issued under this Act shall, while it remains effective, be valid throughout India.

Corresponding Law. - Section 56 corresponds to section 38 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939

Objects and Reasons. – Clause 58 requires that every transport vehicle should carry an effective certificate of fitness issued by the prescribed authorities or by any authorised testing stations specified by the State Governments. It also empowers the issuing authorities to cancel any such certificate if the vehicle fails to comply with the requirements of this Act. The certificate of fitness is to be effective throughout India.”

“66. Necessity for permits.—

(1) No owner of a motor vehicle shall use or permit the use of the vehicle as a transport vehicle in any public place whether or not such vehicle is actually carrying any passengers or goods save in accordance with the conditions of a permit granted or countersigned by a Regional or State Transport Authority or any prescribed authority authorising him the use of the vehicle in that place in the manner in which the vehicle is being used: Provided that a stage carriage permit shall, subject to any conditions that may be specified in the permit, authorise the use of the vehicle as a contract carriage: Provided further that a stage carriage permit may, subject to any conditions that may be specified in the permit, authorise the use of the vehicle as a goods carriage either when carrying passengers or not: Provided also that a goods carriage permit shall, subject to any conditions that may be specified in the permit, authorise the holder to use the vehicle for the carriage of goods for or in connection with a trade or business carried on by him.

(2) The holder of a goods carriage permit may use the vehicle, for the drawing of any trailer or semi-trailer not owned by him, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed: 1[Provided that the holder of a permit of any articulated vehicle may use the prime-mover of that articulated vehicle for any other semi-trailor.]

(3) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall not apply—

(a) to any transport vehicle owned by the Central Government or a State Government and used for Government purposes unconnected with any commercial enterprise;

(b) to any transport vehicle owned by a local authority or by a person acting under contract with a local authority and used solely for road cleansing, road watering or conservancy purposes;

(c) to any transport vehicle used solely for police, fire brigade or ambulance purposes;

(d) to any transport vehicle used solely for the conveyance of corpses and the mourners accompanying the corpses;

(e) to any transport vehicle used for towing a disabled vehicle or for removing goods from a disabled vehicle to a place of safety;

(f) to any transport vehicle used for any other public purpose as may be prescribed by the State Government in this behalf;

(g) to any transport vehicle used by a person who manufactures or deals in motor vehicles or builds bodies for attachment to chassis, solely for such purposes and in accordance with such conditions as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf; 2[***]

(i) to any goods vehicle, the gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed 3,000 kilograms;

(j) subject to such conditions as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify, to any transport vehicle purchased in one State and proceeding to a place, situated in that State or in any other State, without carrying any passenger or goods;

(k) to any transport vehicle which has been temporarily registered under section 43 while proceeding empty to any place for the purpose of registration of the vehicle; 3[***]

(m) to any transport vehicle which, owing to flood, earthquake or any other natural calamity, obstruction on road, or unforeseen circumstances, is required to be diverted through any other route, whether within or outside the State, with a view to enabling it to reach its destination;

(n) to any transport vehicle used for such purposes as the Central or State Government may, by order, specify;

(o) to any transport vehicle which is subject to a hire-purchase, lease or hypothecation agreement and which owing to the default of the owner has been taken possession of by or on behalf of the person with whom the owner has entered into such agreement, to enable such motor vehicle to reach its destination; or

(p) to any transport vehicle while proceeding empty to any place for purpose of repair.

(4) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), sub-section (1) shall, if the State Government by rule made under section 96 so prescribes, apply to any motor vehicle adapted to carry more than nine persons excluding the driver.”

 

9.                In view of sub section 3(k) of section 66 of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the provisions of sub section 1 shall not apply. In case the vehicle which has been temporarily registered under Section 43 while proceeding empty to any place for the purpose of registration of the vehicle. In this case, the Insurance Company has failed to point out that even new vehicle required fitness certificate when it has not been put to use and was proceeding empty for registration etc. In view of this, it is held that the Insurance Company wrongly repudiated complainant’s claim. Therefore, the District Forum perfectly held the Insurance Company to pay the benefits of insurance to the complainant.

10.              In view of the above, the impugned order does not require any interference. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.

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

 

Announced 05.10.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL