CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION – X

GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI

Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel)

New Delhi – 110016

Case No.263/2019

MIHI LAL SHARMA 

S/o Sh. Ramjeelal

R/o C-49, Shiv Park

Khanpur, Delhi-110062.                                             ...COMPLAINANT

Vs.

TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.

Having its office at:

301-308, Third Floor

Aggarwal Prestige Mall

Plot No.2, Road No.44

Near M2K Cinema Rani Bagh

Pitampura, New Delhi-110034.                                              …..RESPONDENTS

                                                                                                                             Date of Institution-31.10.2019

Date of Order-06.09.2024

  O R D E R

RITU GARODIA-MEMBER

1. The complaint pertains to deficiency in service on the part of OP in repudiating the claim of the complainant.

2. Brief facts as stated in the complaint are that the complainant is the owner of vehicle namely TATA SFC 407 bearing no. DL I LP 8349. The vehicle of the complainant was insured with OP insurance vide policy no. 0146362903 valid up to 03.09.2018. The vehicle in question was stolen on 23.08.2018. An E-FIR bearing No. 495/2018 dated 25.08.2018 was lodged at PS: Neb Sarai, South District, New Delhi.

3. Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, Saket Courts, South District, New Delhi accepted the untraced report vide its Order dated 22.05.2019. The complainant lodged a claim with OP who vide its letter dated 06.06.2019 repudiated the claim. The reason cited was the vehicle was not having a valid fitness certificate on the date of theft.  The letter further proposed settlement of claim on substandard basis i.e. 75% of the IDV less excess clause of Rs.500/-. Several correspondence were exchanged between the parties.

4. The complainant submits that the fitness certificate of the vehicle was valid up to 21.08.2018 and the vehicle was stolen on 23.08.2018.

5. The complainant prays for refund of Rs.5,85,300/-, Rs.50,000/- towards litigation and Rs.2,00,00/- towards mental agony and harassment.

6. OP in its reply submits that the complainant had opted for Auto Secure Commercial Package Policy vide policy bearing no. 0146362903 for the period from 4.09.2017 to 03.09.2018 for an IDV of Rs.5,85,300/-.

7. The vehicle was reported to be stolen on 23.08.2018 and an intimation was given to OP on 30.08.2018.  An independent investigator was appointed by OP.  After scrutiny of investigation report, it was found that fitness certificate of the vehicle expired on 21.08.2018 prior to the date of incident.  It is alleged that plying the vehicle without fitness certificate renders the registration of vehicle invalid and is a clear breach of Section 56 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.  Therefore, OP vide this letter dated 06.06.2019 proposed to settle the claim on sub-standard basis. 

8. The complainant in his rejoinder has repeated the averments made in the complaint.  The complainant further clarifies that the vehicle was stolen outside the house and there was no violation of Motor Vehicle Act as the fitness certificate could have been renewed within the grace period.

9. The complainant has filed evidence by way of affidavit and exhibited the following documents

1. Copy of insurance policy is exhibited as Ex.CW-1/A
2. Copy of untraced report is exhibited as Ex.CW-1/B.
3. Copy of Order dated 22.05.2019 is exhibited as Ex.CW-1/C.
4. Copy of letters dated 06.06.2019 are exhibited as Ex.CW-1/D, E & F.

10. OP has filed evidence by way of affidavit and exhibited the following documents

1. Copy of policy with terms and conditions is exhibited as R-1/1.
2. Copy of first notification of loss is exhibited as R-1/2.
3. Copy of investigator report is exhibited as R-1/3.
4. Copy of expired fitness certificate is exhibited as R-1/4.
5. Copy of letters dated 06.06.2019 and 23.09.2019 is exhibited as R-1/5.
6. Copy of letters dated 19.12.2018 and 24.12.02018 is exhibited as R-1/6.

11. The Commission has considered the material and documents on record.  It is admitted by all parties that the vehicle of the complainant was insured with OP. The fitness certificate expired on 21.08.2018.  It is also admitted by both parties that the vehicle was stolen on 23.08.2018 outside the complainant’s home. A FIR was registered on 25.08.2018 at P.S. Neb Sarai vide FIR No.495/18.  OP vide letter dated 06.06.2019  intimated the complainant about the settlement of claim as follows:  
12.  

12. Hon’ble National Commission in Pramod Khushwah V/s The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., RP No.1199 of 2022 decided on 23.02.2024 has observed as follows:

“From the above, it is clear that under section 56, if the transport vehicle is not having a certificate of fitness, it shall not be deemed to be validly registered for the purpose of Section 39. Hence, this alone becomes a valid ground for Insurance Company to repudiate the claim. Further under section 66, it is mandatory for a transport vehicle to ply on road to have a valid permit. The Complainant has not placed on record any material to show that his vehicle is covered under any of the exclusions under sub-section 3 of Section 66. Hence, in our considered view, plying the transport vehicle on road without a valid permit and fitness certificate is in violation of provisions of Motor Vehicle Act entitling the Insurance to repudiate the claim as these constitute fundamental breach of conditions of the policy. The fact that vehicle was not on the road at the time it was stolen will not make a difference in view of the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Sushil Kumar Godara (supra), Narinder Singh (supra) and judgment of this Commission in Naveen Kumar (supra).”

13. In this case, the insured vehicle did not have a fitness certificate at the time of the theft. Based on the observations of the Hon’ble National Commission, it is clear that a vehicle without a certificate of fitness is deemed not to be validly registered, resulting in a fundamental breach of the policy conditions. Therefore, OP insurance company was within its rights to repudiate the complainant's claim, and there is no deficiency in service. The complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs.

14. Order to be uploaded with 30 days and file be consigned to record room.