Hem Raj Goyal vs Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.

Dinesh Singh, 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.'.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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".

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

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.

It is not in dispute that the subject vehicle was not having a valid certificate of fitness on the date of the accident. 1 year, 2 weeks, 4 days (383 days) had elapsed since the expiry of its earlier certificate of fitness.

This is a clear and material violation of the provisions of the MV Act.

The Insurance Co. cannot be faulted for repudiating the Complainant's claim on the said ground that the subject vehicle was not having a certificate of fitness.

Both the Fora below have erred in condoning this fundamental and material violation of the MV Act.

The Complainant did not take the trouble to discharge his lawful duty to obtain a valid certificate of fitness for a protracted period of 1 year, 2 weeks, 4 days (383 days). In effect he was plying his vehicle unlawfully, in violation of the MV Act, without valid certificate of fitness and consequent thereto without valid registration.

If, at the time of the pre-insurance survey, this fundamental and material element was overlooked, as an oversight, or due to collusion between the Insurance Co.'s surveyor and the Complainant, or for any other reason, the onus, still, was on the Complainant, and on no one else, to obtain a valid certificate of fitness before plying the subject transport vehicle on road.

It cannot be that, if, at the time of pre-insurance survey, or at the time of paying the premium, the subject vehicle was not possessing a valid certificate of fitness, the Insurance Co. was estopped from looking into this fundamental and material element at the time of examining the claim, when the Complainant himself was plying his vehicle on road without first obtaining a valid certificate of fitness as required under the MV Act.

Both the Fora below have erred in giving benefit of an oversight, which occurred at the time of the pre-insurance survey, to the Complainant, and in disregarding, one, the purpose behind providing for and enforcing 'certificate of fitness' for 'transport vehicle', two, that the onus of obtaining a valid certificate of fitness before (repeat before) plying his vehicle on road was on the Complainant, and, three, on the date of the accident the subject vehicle was plying unlawfully, in violation of the MV Act.

As the ground for repudiation itself cannot be faulted, there is no need to enter into the other issues raised in Appeal before the State Commission or in Revision before this Commission.

Per se the Complaint is ill-founded, bereft of merit.

The Revision Petition is dismissed.