NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Ajit Bharihoke, Presiding Member, Mrs. Rekha Gupta, Member
National Insurance Co. Ltd. —Petitioner
versus
Ram Diya —Respondent
Revision Petition No. 3794 of 2013
(Against the Order dated 19/07/2013 in Appeal No. 347/2013 of the State Commission Haryana)
Decided on 28.4.2015
Result: Revision Petition dismissed.
Ajit Bharihoke, Presiding Member—This revision is directed against the order of the State Commission Haryana Panchkula dated 19.07.2013 in First Appeal No. 347 of 2013 whereby the State Commission dismissed the appeal of the petitioner insurance company against the order of the District Forum Hissar in complaint no. 201 of 2012.
2. The instant consumer complaint has arisen because of repudiation of insurance claim filed by the respondent complainant in respect of theft of his Bolero vehicle which was insured for Rs. 6,52,900/-. At the time of insurance, the vehicle was having temporary registration no. HR- JL (T) 2967. It is undisputed that on 09.08.2011 subject vehicle was stolen from the parking of N C Jindal Hospital, Model Town, Hisar. FIR in respect of theft was lodged at PS Civil Lines and the petitioner opposite party was informed. According to the opposite party, the claim of the complainant was rejected vide repudiation letter dated 14.08.2012 for the reason that the temporary registration of vehicle had lapsed and the complainant had failed to obtain the proper registration from the concerned registration authority, which amounted to violation of the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short, the Act).
3. The District Forum on appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence allowed the complaint and ordered thus:
“So, we partly allow this complaint direct the opposite party to pay claim amount of Rs.6,20,255/- with interest @ 7% per annum from date of filing of complaint till realization and further to pay compensation and litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/-. Order be complied within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which opposite party will pay interest @ 11% from the date of filing of complaint till realization. Further at the same time we direct to complainant to execute all necessary documents in favour of opposite party and cooperate with insurance company if it wants to take legal action against parking owner. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of cost as required under Sub Rule 10 Rule 4 of the Haryana Consumer Protection Rules, 1988. File be consigned after due compliance.”
4. Being aggrieved of the order of the District Forum, petitioner insurance company preferred an appeal and the State Commission Haryana vide impugned order dismissed the appeal. This led to filing of revision petition.
5. Ms. Meenakshi Midha, Advocate for the petitioner insurance company has assailed the impugned order on two counts; firstly, it is contended that foras below have passed the impugned order in utter disregard of general exception 3 (a) of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Consequently, it is contended that the foras below have failed to appreciate that the insured vehicle at the time of theft was unregistered, meaning thereby that it was used by the complainant in violation of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which is an offence punishable under section 192 of the said Act. Therefore, also, repudiation of claim was justified. In support of her contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Narinder Singh Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Others being Civil Appeal No. 8463 of 2014 arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 26308 of 2013 as also the judgment of this Commission in the matter of Sukhwinder Singh Vs. Cholamandalam – M.S. General Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr., IV (2013) CPJ 218 (NC): 2013(3) CPR 729 (NC).
6. Learned counsel for the respondent on the contrary has argued in support of the impugned orders and relied upon the judgment of this Commission in the matter of Oriental Insurance Company Limited & Anr. Vs. Pearls Buildwell Infrastructure ltd. & Ors., II (2012) CPJ 102 (NC): 2012(2) CPR 222 (NC).
7. So far as first contention of the petitioner is concerned, it will be useful to have a look on the general exception clause 3 (a) of the terms and conditions
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.