NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
C. Viswanath, Presiding Member
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. – Petitioners
versus
Sushil Kumar Godara – Respondent
Revision Petition No.1984 of 2015
(Against the Order dated 20/03/2015 in Appeal No.244/2013 of the State Commission Rajasthan)
Decided on 11.12.2020

IMPORTANT POINT
Insurance Company after accepting the premium cannot repudiated the claim on technical ground.

Headnote:

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 21(b) and 2(1)(g) : [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Sections 58 and 2(11)] – Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 – Section 39 – Motor Insurance – Theft of vehicle – Repudiation of claim – Legality of – Car of the complainant-respondent was stolen outside the guest house – Section 39 of Motor Vehicle Act provides that registration of a vehicle is mandatory – While the complainant failed to get his vehicle registered after expiry of temporary registration – Insurance company after accepting the premium, cannot escape from its liability and repudiate the claim on this technical ground – Parking the vehicle locked outside the guest house where complainant was staying for the right cannot be dubbed as leaving the vehicle unattended – State Commission rightly directed the insurance company to pay the sum assessed i.e. Rs. 6,17,800/- – Interference with declined.

Held: Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Respondent/Complainant had violated Section 39 of Motor Vehicle Act, which provides that registration of a vehicle is mandatory, while the Complainant did not get his vehicle registered after expiry of temporary registration. The Petitioner was, therefore, justified in repudiating the claim of the Respondent/Complainant. It was also submitted that there was negligence on the part of the Complainant as he left his vehicle unattended and parked outside the gate of guesthouse in the night. In the night of 28.07.2011, car of the Complainant was stolen from outside Geeta Guest House, Jodhpur. Complainant has lodged FIR at PS Ratanada, Jodhpur. Vehicle could not be traced by the Police and the Police submitted a final negative report. Claim submitted by the Complainant was repudiated by the Petitioner/Opposite Party. Since the Petitioner/Insurance Company had received the insurance premium and there was no violation of any specific condition in the Insurance Policy, the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the insured for the loss suffered by the insured. Though plying a vehicle on road without registration is a violation of provisions of Motor Vehicle Act, the Competent Authority to take action against a non-registered vehicle is the Police and other Government authorities. Insurance Company after accepting the premium, cannot escape from its liability and repudiate the claim on this technical ground.

The temporary registration of the vehicle expired on 19.07.2011 and the car got stolen on 28.07.2011, mere 9 days later. The Motor Vehicle Act does provide for registration of vehicle after its expiry on payment of certain fee. In Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pearl Buildwell Infrastructure Ltd. 2012 (2) 222 this Commission held “the proviso to Section 43 of the M.V. Act provides for registration of the vehicle even after the expiry of the term of temporary registration certificate after payment of prescribed fees.” In Arora Plants Ltd. vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. III (2013) CPJ 635 held that the Insurance Company does not enjoin the powers of Traffic Police and cannot repudiate the claim taking shelter of M.V. Act. In my opinion, when the Insurance Company itself insured the Complainant’s vehicle and the vehicle had been stolen during the currency of the Policy and the Police was informed immediately, the Insurance Company cannot repudiate the claim of the Complainant on a technical ground.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Insurance Company also submitted that there was delay in intimation of theft to the Insurance Company. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Om Prakash vs. Reliance General Insurance & Anr. AIR 2017 Supreme Court 4836.

The Complainant was on a visit to Jodhpur for business and stayed in a Guest House. The Guest House was in a residential locality and was well populated. He locked the vehicle and parked it outside the guest house and went to sleep. In the morning at about 08.00 AM he found the vehicle missing and complained to the Police. Parking the vehicle locked outside the Guest House where he was staying for the night in a residential colony, is all that one could have done and cannot be dubbed as leaving the vehicle unattended. The State Commission is justified and does not suffer from any illegality or material irregularity. Revision Petition does not have merit. It is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. (Paras 8 to 15)

Result: Petition dismissed.