Haryana

StateCommission

A/484/2016

FUTURE GENERALI INDIA INSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SUSHIL KUMAR - Opp.Party(s)

14 Dec 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

         

                                       

                                      First Appeal No  :    484 & 982 of 2016

                                      Date of Institution:   30.05.2016 & 18.10.2016

                                      Date of Decision :    14.12.2016

 

 

F.A. No.484 of 2016

 

Future Generali India Insurance Company Limited having its registered office at 3^rd Floor, Kailash Building, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001 through its Deputy Manager, Abhilash Chander.

                             Appellant-Opposite Party

 

Versus

Sushil Kumar son of Ranjeet Singh, resident of Mandori, Tehsil Kharkhoda, District Sonepat.

Respondent-Complainant

 

F.A. No.982 of 2016

Sushil Kumar son of Ranjeet Singh, resident of Mandori, Tehsil Kharkhoda, District Sonepat.

Appellant-Complainant

 

Versus

 

Future Generali India Insurance Company Limited having its registered office at 3^rd Floor, Kailash Building, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001 through its Deputy Manager, Abhilash Chander.

                             Respondent-Opposite Party

 

 

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                                                                                                                                          

Argued by:          Shri Vishal Aggarwal, Advocate for Future Generali India Insurance Company

                             Shri R.C. Gupta, Advocate for Sushil Kumar-complainant.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

This order shall dispose of aforesaid mentioned two appeals bearing No.484 and 982 of 2016 filed by Future Generali India Insurance Company-opposite party (for short, ‘Insurance Company’) and Sushil Kumar-complainant respectively because they have arisen out of common order dated March 16^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonepat (for short ‘District Forum’) in complaint No.352 of 2015. 

2.      Vide impugned order, District Forum allowed the complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant by directing the Insurance Company to pay 75% of Rs.6,46,000 (Insured Declared Value) on account of theft of his tractor bearing Engine No.NPHN 00140 on the intervening night of October 03^rd/4^th, 2013. 

3.      The Insurance Company has challenged the impugned order on the ground that the Registration Certificate of the tractor was issued on December 03^rd, 2013, that is, after seven months and fourteen days of its purchase. 

4.      The complainant has impugned the order averring that District Forum erred in deducting 25% of the amount of the Insured Declared Value of the tractor rather the District Forum should have directed the Insurance Company to pay the amount of Rs.6,46,000/-.

5.      Firstly a few admitted facts: Vijay Agro Engineering Works, Sonepat sold the tractor to the complainant on April 19^th, 2013 as is evident from the Delivery Challan (Annexure R-2). The tractor was registered by the Registering Authority on December 03^rd, ,2013, that is, after seven months and fourteen days of its purchase.  The tractor was insured with the Insurance Company with effect from April 19^th, 2013 to April 18^th, 2014 and the Insured Declared Value of the tractor was Rs.6,46,000/-.

6.      Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has urged that since the tractor was registered by the Registering Authority after seven months and fourteen days of its purchase, the Insurance Company was not liable to indemnify the owner. 

7.      Per contra, learned counsel for the complainant has urged that the tractor of course was got registered after seven months and fourteen days of its purchase and two months after its theft but it was not on account of negligence on the part of complainant because the complainant received the Tax Invoice/Sale Invoice from Vijay Agro Engineering Works on September 10^th, 2013 and thereafter he applied for the registration of certificate, which was issued on December 03^rd, 2013.  Learned counsel also pointed out that in the Delivery Receipt (Annexure R-2) issued by Vijay Agro Engineering Works on April 19^th, 2013 it was mentioned that it was the responsibility of Vijay Agro Engineering Works to get the insurance of the tractor and registration certificate issued. 

8.      It is not the case of the complainant at all in his pleadings and evidence that he could not apply for the registration of the tractor because he was not given the tax invoice/sale invoice earlier by Vijay Agro Engineering Works.  Not only that, he did not plead that it was the duty of Vijay Agro Engineering Works to get him issued registration certificate.  So, the contention raised by learned counsel for the complainant is hereby repelled.  In Narinder Singh Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited and others, Civil Appeal No.8463 of 2014 decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court on September 4^th, 2014 vehicle was granted temporary registration for one month, which expired on January 11^th, 2016.  The vehicle met with an accident on February, 02^nd, 2016, that is, after 22 days on expiry of temporary registration. Hon’ble Supreme Court held that using a vehicle on the public road without any registration is not only an offence punishable under Section 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act but also a fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of the policy contract. 

9.      In view of the above, it is held that the Insurance Company rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant.  District Forum fell in error in allowing the complaint and as such, the impugned order cannot be allowed to sustain. The appeal No.484 of 2016 filed by Insurance Company is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.  Consequently, appeal No.982 of 2016 filed by the complainant stands dismissed.

10.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal No.484 of 2016 be refunded to the Future Generali India Insurance Company Limited-appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

11.    Certified copy of this order be placed on the file of Appeal No.484 of 2016.

 

Announced 14.12.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

UK