IMPORTANT POINT
Repudiation of Claim – Plying the transport vehicle on road without a valid fitness certificate is in violation of provisions of Motor Vehicle Act entitling the Insurance to repudiate the claim.

ORDER

The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioners against Respondents as detailed above, under section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the order dated 29.10.2021 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No. A/183/2019 in which order dated 13.06.2019 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaint (CC) No. 533/2018 was challenged, inter alia praying for setting aside the impugned order.

2. While the Revision Petitioner(s) (hereinafter also referred to as OP/Insurance Company) was Appellant before the State Commission and OPs-1 & 2 before the District Forum and the Respondent-1 (hereinafter also referred to as Complainant) was Respondent -1 before the State Commission and Complainant before the District Forum and Respondent-2 (hereinafter referred to as Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd./OP-3) was Respondent -2 before the State Commission and OP-3 before the District Forum.

3. Notice was issued to the Respondents on 22.04.2022. Parties filed Written Arguments on 15.12.2023 (Petitioner) and 29.01.2024 (Respondent-1) respectively. Respondent -2 has not filed written synopsis, however, R-2 has filed reply to Revision Petition on 20.09.2022.

4. Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Commission and other case records are that:

The Complainant/Respondent-1 got insured one Taxi with OP-1 effective from 08.10.2017 to 07.10.2018. The complainant hired Sh. Harinder Shahi as driver for his vehicle. The said car met with an accident in the night of 18.10.2017 near Punjab College, Sarkpada on Sirhand-Chunni Road. The car was hit by unknown vehicle resulting in, the Taxi went out of control and hit against the roadside tree. The incident of accident was reported to the police at Police Post: Chunni Kalan, District-Mohali. The complainant informed OPs-1 & 2 and car was taken to the authorized repairer M/s Joshi Hyundai, Mohali. The loss estimate prepared by the Aurhorized Repairer was supplied to OP-2, the authorized office to deal the accidental loss claim and after receiving the same, final Survey was carried out by the surveyor appointed by OP-2. OP-2 approved the claim on total loss basis. Since the insured Taxi is under Hypothecation with OP-3/Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd., Chandigarh, OP-2 wrote a letter to OP-3 (financing bank) to supply the NOC for cancellation of registration of the insured vehicle. The OP-3 demanded full payment in advance for issuing the NOC and did not issue the conditional NOC to OP-2. OP-2 also sent a copy of the said letter to the Registration authority Punjab, Chandigarh for cancellation of registration and other related documents. When the OP-2/Insurance Company did not pay the claim and delayed the payment of the claim in spite of providing all the documents as and when demanded. Aggrieved by the attitude of the OPs, complainant issued a legal notice on 28.08.2018 to pay the claim within 7 days from the receipt of the Legal Notice. Despite receipt of notice, nothing has been done, hence the complainant filed complaint before the District Forum.

5. Vide Order dated 13.06.2019, in the CC No. 533/2018, the District Forum allowed the complaint against OPs-1 & 2 and dismissed the complaint qua OP-3.

6. Aggrieved by the said Order dated 13.06.2019 of District Forum, Petitioners appealed in State Commission and the State Commission vide order dated 29.10.2021 dismissed Appeal No. A/162/2019 and upheld the order passed by the District Forum with modifications in the directions.

7. Petitioners have challenged the said Order dated 29.10.2021 of the State Commission mainly on following grounds:—

(i) The State Commission has incorrectly upheld the order dated 13.06.2019 passed by the District Forum because it has not considered the Petitioner’s defe