Back
HARYANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
R.S. Madan, President and B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. - Appellant
Versus
SUNIL KUMAR WADHWA - Respondent
First Appeal No. 393 of 2011
Decided on : 06-07-2012
Mr. R.C. Gupta, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Vivek Goel, Advocate, for the Respondent
Strict construction of insurance policy terms and conditions for settling claims and the mandatory requirement of vehicle registration under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Headnote:
Insurance Claim - Vehicle Insurance - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 39
Fact of the Case:
The complainant's vehicle was stolen during the subsistence of the insurance policy obtained from the opposite party. The claim was repudiated on the ground of failure to furnish the Registration Certificate of the vehicle. The District Consumer Forum accepted the complaint and directed the opposite party to pay the claim amount with interest. The opposite party appealed against this order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complainant violated the mandatory requirement of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by driving the vehicle without registering it. It held that the terms and conditions of the insurance policy have to be construed strictly for settling insurance claims.
Issues: Violation of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, repudiation of the insurance claim, and the liability of the insurance company.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the view that the insurance company was justified in repudiating the claim due to the complainant's violation of the law by driving the vehicle without registration. It emphasized the strict construction of insurance policy terms and conditions for settling claims.
Final Decision: The appeal was accepted, the impugned order was set aside, and the complaint was dismissed. The appellant was refunded the statutory amount deposited during the appeal process.
ORDER
R.S. Madan, President - This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 14.1.2011 passed by District Consumer Forum, Kurukshetra in complaint bearing No. 755/2007 which relates to insurable benefits of vehicle which was stolen during the subsistence of the Insurance Policy obtained by the respondent-complainant from the appellant-opposite party.
2. Undisputed facts of the present case are that the complainant had purchased an Ape Delivery Van bearing Chassis No. CGA-258310, Engine No. 111380 from Neel Automobiles, Yamuna Nagar on 16.12.2005 for a sum of Rs. 1,31,000 which was got insured with the appellant-opposite party vide policy dated 4.2.2004 valid upto 3.2.2007. On 6.2.2006 the above said vehicle was stolen from Arora Palace, Kurukshetra. F.I.R. No. 65 dated 9.2.2006 under Section 379, I.P.C. was registered in Police Station City Thanesar, District Kurukshetra. Intimation was given to the opposite party. The claim of the complainant was repudiated on the ground that the complainant failed to furnish the necessary documents i.e. Registration Certificate of the vehicle with the opposite party. Challenging the repudiation of his claim, the complainant invoked the jurisdiction of the District Consumer Forum by filing complaint.
3. Upon notice, the opposite party appeared and contested the complaint by filing written statement wherein repudiation of complainant's claim was justified in view of the facts stated in the preceding para of this order. It was prayed that the complaint merited dismissal.
4. On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced on the record, District Forum accepted complaint with the following observations:
"6. To us on appraisal of rival contentions, the contention of OP is held devoid of force because the sale letter, insurance cover note, insurance policy, copy of FIR or copy of Superdari and copy of recovery memo all depicts the name of complainant as owner. Otherwise also the insurance of a vehicle goes with the vehicle and not with the person. In the present case since the cover note is in the name of complainant. Policy is also issued in the name of complainant, claim is submitted in the name of complainant and so repudiation of the claim submitted has no meaning. The second contention of OP is that the damage has been assessed by the surveyor to the tune of Rs. 47,102. But the same on appraisal is held devoid of force because the vehicle in question was insured for a value of Rs. 1,24,450. After theft only its body was recovered and no other part was recovered. So the claim submitted by the complainant to the tune of Rs. 99,584 in our view not in any way excess rather its seems to be genuine. So the complaint moved in our view has merits.
7. For the foregoing reasons, we accept this complaint and direct the OP to pay Rs. 99,584 with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till final realization. This order shall be complied within 30 days."
Aggrieved against the order of the District Forum, opposite party has come up in appeal.
5. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the case file.
On behalf of the appellant it has been argued that complainant's claim was rightly repudiated as the complainant had failed to furnish the Registration Certificate of the vehicle. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent-complainant has contended that all other documents i.e. sale letter, insurance cover note, insurance policy and copy of Sapurdari were produced by the complainant which show the ownership of the complainant with respect to the vehicle and thus prayed for maintaining the order of the District Forum.
6. Having considered the rival contentions on behalf of the parties, we find force in the arguments raised on behalf of the appellant in view of law settled in case Kaushalendra Kumar Mishra v. Oriental insurance Co. Ltd., (2012) 1 CPJ 559 (NC), wherein Hon'ble National Consumer Commission has held as under:
"8. In our view, these
