IMPORTANT POINT
Insurance Company held justified in repudiating the claim on ground that the subject vehicle was not having a valid certificate of fitness.

ORDER

Dinesh Singh, Presiding Member—This Revision Petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’, challenging the Order dated 31.05.2013 of The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’, in F.A. No. 988 of 2011 arising out of the Order dated 17.03.2011 in C.C. No. 710 of 2010 passed by The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur, hereinafter referred to as the ‘District Forum’.

The Petitioner herein, Mr. Hem Raj Goyal, was the Complainant before the District Forum, and is hereinafter being referred to as the ‘Complainant’.

The Respondent herein, Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., was the Opposite Party before the District Forum, and is hereinafter being referred to as the ‘Insurance Co.’.

2. Heard learned Counsel for the Complainant and the Insurance Co., and perused the material on record including inter alia the Order dated 17.03.2011 of the District Forum, the impugned Order dated 31.05.2013 of the State Commission and the Petition.

3. The dispute relates to repudiation of an accident insurance claim under a “Goods Carrying Vehicle Package Policy”.

4. The repudiation letter of the Insurance Co., as quoted in para 14 of the State Commission’s impugned Order, reads as below:

The fitness certificate provided by you is valid upto till 03.10.2008 which was not further renewed by you and is not effective on the date of loss i.e. 21.10.2009, thus, the claim not payable as per the policy terms and conditions.

5. The District Forum vide its Order dated 17.03.2011 allowed the Complaint. The State Commission vide its Order dated 31.05.2013 allowed the Insurance Co.’s Appeal and dismissed the Complaint.

6. The salient facts, relevant and material to decide the case, are that the vehicle had a certificate of fitness valid upto 03.10.2008. Premium for insurance was paid on 06.04.2009. Prior thereto, a pre-inspection survey was conducted by a surveyor of the Insurance Co. On the date the premium was paid, as also prior thereto when the pre-insurance survey was conducted, the validity of the certificate of fitness had expired. The vehicle met with an accident on 21.10.2009. It still did not have a valid certificate of fitness, the validity of its earlier certificate having expired on 03.10.2008.

7. The subject policy was a “Goods Carrying Vehicle Package Policy”.

It is not disputed that the subject vehicle was a “transport vehicle” (“a public service vehicle, a goods carriage, an educational institution bus or a private service vehicle”) as defined in Section 2(47) of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, hereinafter referred to as the ‘MV Act’.

Section 56 (Certificate of fitness of transport vehicles) of the MV Act inter alia provides that “a transport vehicle shall not be deemed to be validly registered for the purposes of Section 39, unless it carries a certificate of fitness.”.

Section 39 of the MV Act (Necessity for registration) inter alia provides that “No person shall drive any motor vehicle - - - unless the vehicle is registered - - - and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled”.

8. In the absence of a valid certificate of fitness, the vehicle was not validly registered, was not lawfully allowed to ply on road.

9. Here it may be noted that there is a purpose behind providing for and enforcing ‘certificate of fitness’ for ‘transport vehicle’, i.e. for ‘a public service vehicle, a goods carriage, an educational institution bus or a private service vehicle’, which becomes clear from a mere reading of the tests specified in the Table given in Rule 62 of The Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989. The fundamental purpose, evidently, is to ensure that the vehicle is roadworthy, as to ply safely on road, without harm to one’s own self or to the others.

10. It is not in dispute that the subject vehicle was not having a valid certificate of fitness on the date of the accide