Dalbir Singh vs Reliance General Insurance Company Limited & Anr

The present Revision Petition is filed by the Petitioner under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana (hereinafter referred to as the "State Commission") in Appeal No. 283/2018 dated 09.04.2018.

According to the Petitioner/Complainant, he purchased a tractor on 30.11.2007 from M/s Guru Automobile, Chandigarh-Nahan Road, Naraingarh for Rs.3,85,000/- and got the same insured vide Policy No. 2004372343100443 having validity from 01.12.2007 to 30.11.2008.On 02.06.2008, while his tractor, loaded with sugarcane crop, reached Main Highway, Opposite Malwa Gramin Bank, Shanbhu, some unknown persons stopped the tractor and wrongly confined the driver.Later when the driver went to see the tractor, it was found missing as it was stolen. Complaint was lodged in Police Post Shanbhu, P.S. Sadar Rajpura vide DDR No. 21 and the insurance company was intimated. The Police investigated the matter after lodging FIR No. 126 dated 11.07.2008 under Sections 382, 342/34 IPC. The Petitioner submitted copy of order, FIR, DDR for settlement of claim with Respondents but they demanded original RC and document.

Since original documents were delivered to the Police at the time of registration of the case therefore, the RC was yet to be prepared. The IDV of the vehicle was Rs. 4,35,000/- but the Respondents has settled the matter for only Rs. 2,75,000/- and also obtained consent letter under compelling circumstances. The claim was settled for lesser amount due to non-availability of the registration certificate and due to incomplete documents. The Petitioner requested the Respondents to pay full claim as per IDV but it delayed the matter on one pretext or the other. The Petitioner being the owner of the vehicle in question as per verdict given by Hon'ble Civil Court at Naraingarh dated 14.09.2015 was entitled for the claim arising out of the insured vehicle but the Respondents flatly refused to make the payment thereof. Hence, Complaint was filed by the Petitioner alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Respondents.

The Complaint was contested by the Respondent alleging that the claim was not maintainable due to late intimation i.e. after 2 months of loss and due to other violations of the Policy such as non-registration of the vehicle despite elapse of 7 months from the date of purchase. As per Section 139 of Motor Vehicle Act, it was necessary to register a vehicle within 30 days of its purchase.It was further contended that DDR was a manipulated document and was contrary to the version of the FIR.

The District Forum, vide order dated 08.02.2018 dismissed the Complaint of the Petitioner relying upon the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court Narinder Singh Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited and others.

Thereafter, the Petitioner filed an Appeal before the State Commission against the order passed by the District Forum. The State Commission vide order dated 09.04.2018, dismissed the appeal of the Petitioner upholding the order passed by the District Forum on the ground that the Petitioner failed to prove deficiency on the part of the Respondents in repudiating the claim.

Being aggrieved by the order passed by the State Commission,the Petitioner preferred the present Revision Petition on the following grounds, among others:-

The State Commission failed to appreciate the fact that vehicle in question was snatched/looted by unknown persons and had not met with an accident. Hence, the case of the Petitioner was fully covered by the judgment passed by the Hon'ble National Commission in case titled as "Nidheesh Sharma Bharti Axa General Insurance Company" [RP No. 67/2015 decided on 14.10.2015].

Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner. He reiterated the arguments as already stated above.We have carefully perused the record and orders of both the Fora below.There is a delay of 8 days in filing the present Revision Petition. Delay being very less, it is condoned.

As per Section 39 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, "No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner."

The Supreme court has observed in "Narinder Singh V.s New India Assurance Company Ltd." [(2014) 9 SCC 324] as under:-

"using the vehicle on the public road without any registration is not only an offence punishable under Section 192 of the Motor Vehicle Act but also a fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of policy contract."

In "Nidheesh Sharma vs. Bharti Axa General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr." (supra) the car was stolen and at the time of theft, the vehicle was not being driven by anyone.In the present case, however, the tractor was being driven by the Complainant's driver and some unknown persons stopped and later stole the tractor.The vehicle was not registered even after 7 months of purchase.It is further observed that the Petitioner failed to explain the reasons for not registering the vehicle.There is also no record to show that the insured had deposited the requisite registration fee and road tax on the vehicle with the RTO or with the dealer/sub dealer from where the vehicle was purchased.The present case is covered by Supreme Court judgment in "Narinder Singh V.s New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Ors." (supra).Hence, in our opinion both the Fora below have given clear and justified reasons for not allowing the Complaint of the Petitioner.

In view of the same, the present Revision Petition is dismissed. Orders passed by both the District Forum and the State Commission are upheld. There shall be no order as to costs.