Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 22182
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Daya Chaudhary, President, Simarjot Kaur, Member
United India Insurance Company Limited – Appellant
Versus
Harmail Singh – Respondent
First Appeal No.1079 of 2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: D.P. Gupta
For the Respondents: None
An insurance company cannot repudiate a claim for damages on the sole ground of an expired fitness certificate if there is no causal nexus between the lack of fitness and the cause of the accident.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 2019 - Section 41 - Motor Vehicles Act - Sections 39, 56, 66, and 84 - Insurance claim - Repudiation of claim on ground of expired fitness certificate - District Commission allowed complaint with interest - Appeal by insurer - Held, mere absence of valid fitness certificate at time of accident does not entitle insurer to repudiate claim unless nexus between unfitness and accident is established - Violations of Motor Vehicles Act are distinct from violations of policy conditions - In absence of evidence showing accident was caused by technical fault due to unfitness, repudiation is unjustified. (Paras 10, 14, 15, 16)
Facts of the case:
Respondent filed a complaint for insurance claim following an accident of his vehicle. Insurer rejected the claim stating the fitness certificate had expired. District Commission allowed the claim, holding the insurer liable to pay as per surveyor assessment. Insurer appealed, arguing that plying a vehicle without a valid fitness certificate constitutes a breach of statutory and policy conditions.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that the accident occurred due to stray cattle, not any technical vehicle defect. It held that the insurer failed to prove that the breach (non-renewal of fitness certificate) was a fundamental violation of policy conditions justifying repudiation, noting the distinction between statutory violations under transport laws and insurance contract breaches.
Issues: Whether the insurer holds the right to repudiate an insurance claim solely due to the lapse of a fitness certificate for a transport vehicle where no evidence links the absence of the certificate to the cause of the accident.
Ratio Decidendi: An insurance company cannot repudiate a claim for a technical or statutory breach that lacks a direct causal connection to the occurrence of the accident if the vehicle was otherwise insured and validly registered.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of facts involving insurance claim repudiation due to expired fitness certificate. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. review of evidence and outcome in district commission. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. legal standard regarding statutory violations vs. policy terms in insurance contracts. (Para 10 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. final confirmation of dismissal of appeal. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
1) Whether Reporters of the Newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No
2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No
3) Whether judgment should be reported
in the Digest? Yes/No
JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY, PRESIDENT:-
The appellants/OPs i.e. United India Insurance Company Limited & others, through their Assistant Manager have filed the present appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (in short the ‘Act’) to challenge the impugned order dated 28.07.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bathinda (hereinafter referred as the “District Commission”) in Consumer Complaint No.25 of 2019.
2. It would be apposite to mention that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District Commission.
3. Respondent/complainant Harmail Singh through his special Attorney Davinder Singh filed the complaint before the District Commission under Section 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 wherein it was mentioned that he was registered owner of Truck/Tralla bearing registration No.PB-46-M-5204, Chasis No.MAT447212C3B03512, Engine No.21A63229212. Said vehicle was insured with the OPs which was valid with effect from 10.04.2017 to 09.04.2018. Davinder Singh the Attorney of complainant was managing the said vehicle and he engaged one Simarjeet Singh as driver on the said vehicle as he was holding a legal and valid driving licence. Davinder Singh got loaded Truck/Tralla from Green Transport Company, Ludhiana in the first week of November 2017 and it was to be unloaded at Bangalore. After unloading the material, the said Truck was loaded at Angol for Mandi Gobindgarh (Punjab). When said Truck reached in the area of Ramgarh (Ranchi) on 04.12.2017, it met with an accident as some stray animal suddenly came on the road in front of the vehicle. The driver applied sudden breaks due to which the Truck/Tralla turned turtle and it was badly damaged in the accident. Said accident had taken place all of a sudden which was due to coming of stray cattle in front of the vehicle and none was at fault and because of that reason no FIR was got registered regarding said accident. Further it was mentioned that the intimation regarding said accident was given telephonically to Insurance Company (OP), who provided the telephone number of Surveyor Sh. Bishan Kumar, who had further informed about the accident and thereafter Surveyor reached at the place of accident and prepared a detailed report by mentioning that it was a case of total loss. The report so prepared by the Surveyor was brought to the notice of the Insurance Company. On the asking of the Surveyor, the vehicle was brought at Barnala by towing with the help of crane and it was parked in the workshop for repair in the month of January 2018. The estimate of the repair was prepared which was Rs.11,35,103/-. Thereafter the complainant lodged the insurance claim with the OPs and supplied all the relevant documents in the month of April 2018 but the OPs had failed to pay amount of the repair of the vehicle in dispute and the Truck is still lying parked in the premises of M/s Kissan Motors, Barnala. The OPs had refused the claim of the complainant on the ground that the date of fitness certificate of the damaged truck had already been expired on 23.11.2017 i.e. prior to the date of accident and as such the complainant was not entitled to any insurance claim. The complaint was filed by the complainant before the District Commission for issuance of the following directions to the OPs to :-
i) pay the total amount of insurance claim on account of loss suffered by the c
