SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

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

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Ms. Meenakshi Midha, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Rajat Rathee, Advocate

IMPORTANT POINT
Insurance Claim cannot be repudiated in event of any single violation of provisions of M.V. Act.

Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 15, 17, 19 and 21—Motor Vehicles Act, 1988—Sections 39 and 192—Insurance—Theft of vehicle—Claim rejected on ground that temporary registration of vehicle had lapsed and complainant had failed to obtain proper registration from registration authority which amounted to violation of provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988—Complaint allowed by Fora below—At the time of insurance, subject vehicle was having temporary registration—Despite that insurance company instead of providing insurance cover only for period till temporary registration was valid, insured vehicle for full one year and charged premium for the same—There is nothing in contract or the Act to provide that in event of any single violation of provision of Section 39 of the Act, insured shall lose insurance cover if loss / damage to vehicle is caused subsequent to commission of said violation punishable under section 192 of the Act—Insurance company cannot take advantage of offence under section 192 r/w section 39 of the Act committed by insured by driving vehicle from his residence to hospital much earlier to theft of vehicle which was parked in parking lot of hospital—As such, repudiation of claim is not justified—Impugned order affirmed. (Paras 14 to 17)

       Result: Revision Petition dismissed.

       

ORDER

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




























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top