IMPORTANT POINT
Claims are not payable if there is no valid registration certificate, fitness certificate or route permit for vehicle.

Dr. B.C. Gupta, Presiding Member—This revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 5.2.2013, passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as “the State Commission”) in First Appeal No. 53 of 2008, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. v. Meenakshi Jarial, vide which, the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hoshiarpur dated 6.12.2007 in Consumer Complaint No. 240 of 10.8.2007 was ordered to be modified.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant/respondent insured her Tata truck with the petitioner, Insurance Company for the period 31.5.2006 to 30.5.2007 for an assured sum of Rs.15,20,000 and paid premium of Rs.21,351. As stated in the consumer complaint, there was a dispute between the complainant/respondent and M/s. Balwant Sales Ltd., the dealer of the vehicle as to whether they had delivered 2005 model of the vehicle, instead of 2006 model to the complainant/respondent. It has been stated in the complaint that the dealer paid a sum of Rs.40,000 to them as compensation and issued a bill and a sale letter dated 11.12.2006 (although the vehicle was purchased on 12.6.2006). The said vehicle was got registered on 23.2.2007 after paying the late fee etc. and thereafter, the route permit was applied for the said truck. The said vehicle was damaged in an accident on 14.1.2007 and a report to this affect was given to the police as well as to the Insurance Company, which appointed a surveyor for the spot survey of the vehicle. The complainant/respondent got the said truck repaired from M/s. Libra Automobiles, Singriwala, Hoshiarpur and paid an amount of Rs. 2,39,870, vide invoice dated 26.2.2007. The Insurance Company appointed a surveyor to assess the loss, who gave its report on 30.3.2007 and assessed the loss at Rs.1,83,118. However, the Insurance Company refused to entertain the claim on the ground that the vehicle was not registered on the day of the accident, neither it had any route permit for plying the truck and even the fitness certificate was not there. The complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Forum demanding a sum of Rs.2,39,170 as the loss suffered by them, alongwith Rs.50,000 as compensation for mental agony and Rs.11,000 for the litigation expenses. The complaint was resisted by the Insurance Company by filing a written statement before the District Forum in which they stated that the insured vehicle did not have a registration certificate, valid route permit and fitness certificate on the day of the accident. The District Forum after taking into account the contentions raised by the parties, allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner/opposite party to make payment of Rs.1,83,118 alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the complaint i.e. 10.8.2007 till realization alongwith litigation cost of Rs.1,000. Being aggrieved from this order, the petitioner/ Insurance Company challenged the same by way of an appeal before the State Commission, which was decided vide impugned order. The State Commission allowed the complaint and directed the Insurance Company to pay 75% of the admissible claim on non-standard basis. The Insurance Company was thus directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,29,838 to the complainant. Being aggrieved against this order, the Insurance Company is before this Commission by way of the present revision petition.

3. During hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention to a copy of the repudiation letter, sent by them to the complainant, in which it has been stated as follows:

On going through the claim papers, we observed that:

1. The vehicle was not registered as on date of loss.

2. The vehicle was not having a valid fitness certificate as on date of loss.

3. The vehicle was not having a valid route permit as on date of loss.”

4. The complaint was thus repudiated by