Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.Y. Eqbal, Pinaki Chandra Ghose, JJ.
Narinder Singh – Appellants
Versus
New India Assurance Company Ltd. and others – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NO.8463 OF 2014 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.26308 of 2013)
Decided On : 04-09-2014
(2010) 4 SCC 536 – Distinguished impliedly
Facts of the case:
The petitioner-complainant had purchased a Mahindra Pick UP BS-II 4WD vehicle and got it insured for an amount of Rs. 4,30,037/-with respondent no.1–M/s. New India Assurance Company Ltd. for the period 12.12.2005 to 11.12.2006. The vehicle was temporarily registered for one month period, which expired on 11.1.2006. However, on 2.2.2006, the vehicle met with an accident and got damaged. The complainant lodged FIR and informed about it to the respondent-Company, which appointed a surveyor and assessed the loss at Rs.2,60,845/-on repair basis. The insurance claim was, however, repudiated by the opposite party on the ground that the person driving the vehicle at the time of the accident, did not possess a valid and effective driving licence and also the vehicle had not been registered after the expiry of the temporary registration.
Consequently, the appellant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum.
The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the respondent-Company to indemnify the complainant to the extent of 75% of 4,30,037/-along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum thereon with effect from the date of filing of the complaint.
The State Commission allowed the appeal of the Company and dismissed the complaint of the Complainant due to which the appeal preferred by the appellant-complainant was dismissed as infructuous.
The appellant’s revision petition before the National Commission was also dismissed.
Finding of the Court:
There is no infirmity in the impugned order.
Key Points: - There is no infirmity in the impugned order holding that plying an unregistered vehicle is an offense under Section 192 and a breach of policy terms. (!) - Temporary registration expired prior to the accident (11.1.2006; accident on 2.2.2006) and owner did not apply for permanent registration or extension; vehicle driven without registration. (!) (!) - Vehicle was temporarily registered for one month; no evidence of extension/ permanent registration; driving without registration is prohibited under Section 39 and constitutes a breach of policy terms. (!) (!) (!) - The National Commission and State Commission decisions held that the insurance claim is not payable due to driving without valid registration, reinforcing that such use breaches policy terms. (!) (!) - The appellant argued for non-standard basis settlement similar to issues of improper licencing or registration, but the Court rejected this, upholding outright repudiation. (!) (!) (!)
JUDGMENT
M.Y. Eqbal, J.: Leave granted.
2. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated 12.4.2013 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (in short, “National Commission”) whereby Revision Petition No.4951 of 2012 of the appellant herein was dismissed upholding the judgment of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla (in short, “State Commission”), which had dismissed the complaint and set aside the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shimla (in short, “District Forum”) granting the claim on non-standard basis.
3. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass.
4. The petitioner-complainant had purchased a Mahindra Pick UP BS-II 4WD vehicle and got it insured for an amount of Rs. 4,30,037/-with respondent no.1–M/s. New India Assurance Company Ltd. for the period 12.12.2005 to 11.12.2006. The vehicle was temporarily registered for one month period, which expired on 11.1.2006. However, on 2.2.2006, the vehicle met with an accident and got damaged. The complainant lodged FIR and informed about it to the respondent-Company, which appointed a surveyor and assessed the loss at Rs.2,60,845/-on repair basis. The insurance claim was, however, repudiated by the opposite party on the ground that the person Rajeev Hetta, who was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident, did not possess a valid and effective driving licence and also the vehicle had not been registered after the expiry of the temporary registration. Consequently, the appellant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum.
5. After hearing parties on either side and scanning the record of the case meticulously, the District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the respondent-Company to indemnify the complainant to the extent of 75% of 4,30,037/-along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum thereon with effect from the date of filing of the complaint. Aggrieved by the decision of the District Forum, Respondent-Company as well as the appellant-complainant approached State Commission by way of appeal. The State Commission by its common order disposed of both the appeals, allowing appeal of the Company and dismissing the complaint of the Complainant due to which the appeal preferred by the appellant-complainant was dismissed as infructuous.
6. Aggrieved by the decision of the State Commission, the appellant preferred revision petition before the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which also stood dismissed. The National Commission observed thus:
“We have examined the entire material on record and given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us. The State Commission, after a careful examination of the facts of this case and after examining the Licence Clerk of the Theog Licencing Authority came to the conclusion that the licence possessed by Rajeev Hetta had been endorsed for HGV with effect from 20.4.2002, which was valid for three years. The licence was also endorsed for LMV-Transport with effect from 7.6.2003, which was also valid for three years. The accident had taken place on 2.2.2006, on which date the licence for HGV had expired, but it remained valid for LMV-transport. It is clear, therefore, that the driver had a valid and effective licence. However, it is also clear from the facts on record that the temporary registration of the vehicle done by the Registration Authority of UT, Chandigarh had expired on 11.01.2006. At the time of accident on 2.2.2006, the vehicle was being driven without registration, which is prohibited under Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and is also an offence under Section 192 of the said Act.”
Hence, present appeal by special leave by the complainant.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
8. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that in case of an accident of a vehicle, when insured, uses the vehicle contrary to conditions unde
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
