Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Prem Narain, Presiding Member
M/s. Bharat Construction —Appellant
versus
Divisional Manager, National
Insurance Co. Ltd. —Respondent
First Appeal No.423 of 2010
First Appeal No.26 of 2011
Decided on 29.6.2018
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Ms. Charanjeet Bhatia, Proxy for Ms. Aditi Deshpande, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Yogesh Malhotra and Mr. Rajnesh Kumar, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
Non-registration of vehicle and driver not having valid driving licence on the date of accident constitute fundamental breach of terms and conditions of policy.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 17, 19 and 21—Insurance—Package Policy—Damage to vehicle in accident—Claim repudiated on multiple grounds—Complaint partly allowed by State Commission on non-standard basis—State Commission has agreed with fact that vehicle was not having valid registration on the date of accident and it has violated provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and consequently policy conditions—State Commission has ordered insurance claim to be settled on non-standard basis without considering implication of fundamental violation of Motor Vehicles Act—If vehicle was not having valid registration number, it should not have been taken out for work on the site and accident could not have happened—In that situation there could not have been any insurance claim—Apart from this, driver of vehicle was not having valid driving licence on the date of accident—Two violations of Motor Vehicles Act in respect of non-registration of vehicle and driver not having valid driving licence on the date of accident constitute fundamental breach of terms and conditions of policy and Insurance Company would not be liable to pay insurance claim under these circumstances—Order passed by State Commission set aside—However, Insurance Company shall pay Rs.1,00,000/- to complainant as cost for condoning delay in filing appeal. (Paras 10 to 14)
Result: Appeals Partly allowed.
These two appeals have been filed by M/s. Bharat Construction and Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. against the order dated 15.11.2010 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh, (in short ‘the State Commission’) passed in Complaint No.08/2010.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 31.03.2007, complainant M/s. Bharat Construction purchased a package policy of insurance from opposite party National Insurance Company Ltd. in respect of newly purchased construction equipment vehicle (Dumper) from Tata Motors Ltd. Jamshedpur. On 28.05.2007 while working at the work site near Bayal Distt. Kullu, the insured vehicle met with an accident and went downhill deeply which resulted in total loss of the vehicle. On 30.05.2007, proper claim was lodged with opposite party. FIR was lodged with police. Opposite party arranged spot survey. After the machine was retrieved, the Insurance Company appointed the final surveyor and loss assessor to assess the loss. The surveyor assessed the net loss of Rs.24,98,000/-. However, no payment was made by the Insurance Company. However, the Insurance Company repudiated the claim on 22.02.2010 on the ground that inspite of several reminders, the complainant did not deposit the copy of the RC, route permit and fitness certificate. It was further mentioned that the temporary registration had expired on 28.04.2007 and the accident took place on 28.05.2007. Thus, the vehicle was without registration on the date of accident. The complainant then filed consumer complaint No.08 of 2010 before the State Commission. The complaint was resisted by the opposite party on the ground mentioned in the repudiation letter as well as on the additional ground that the driver was not having requisite driving licence to drive the vehicle. His driving licence had also expired before the date of accident.
3. The State Commission vide its order dated 15.11.2010 partly allowed the complaint and ordered that the opposite party/Insurance Company shall settle the insurance claim for Rs.16,02,920/- along with interest @9% p.a. since 01.12.2007.
4. Aggrieved with the order dated 15.11.2010 of the State Commission, the opposite party/ Insurance Company as well as the complainant both have preferred appeals bearing No.26 of 2011 and 423 of 2010 respectively.
5. Learned counsel for the complainant/appellant did not appear for two consecutive dates to argue the matter. Hence, on third date when the learned counsel for the complainant did not appear again, the learned counsel for the opposite party was heard. It is to be noted that on all the three dates learned counsel for the complainant was represented by different proxy counsel and the proxy counsel appearing on the third date of hearing did not have the authority letter to argue the matter nor he was ready with the matter.
6. The learned counsel for the opposite party argued that the vehicle in question was a dumper and it is supposed to be a transport vehicle, however, the State Commission has not treated this as transport vehicle and has stated that the complainant does not require the route permit. Moreover, the temporary registration number given to the complainant was valid only for 30 days and the same expired on 28.04.2007. It is not the case of the complainant that the complainant applied for permanent registration number or for any extension of temporary registration number. Thus, the vehicle was without any registration on the date of accident which happened on 28.05.2007. As per Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, no vehicle can be taken on road without registration number from the Transport Authority. Therefore, the dumper in question was not authorised to work on the field, after its temporary registration expired. The State Commission has also agreed with this point of view, however, the State Commission has still allowed the insurance claim on non-standard basis, whereas the claim should have been totally rejected. To suppor
