RAJENDRA PRASAD TIWARY vs NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY

MR. Jaiswal, appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 3, files Vakalatnama along with certain documents, which may be kept on the record in this appeal, limitation petition has been filed for condoning the delay. According to the office report, limitation expired on 8.1.2003 whereas the instant appeal was filed on 10.12.2003. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the petition. For the reasons stated therein, let the delay in filing the appeal be condoned.

UNSUCCESSFUL complainant is the appellant before us against the judgment and order dated 7.11.2003 on the file of the District Consumer Forum, Giridih, whereby, the appellant has been non-suited with respect to the insurance claim under the policy, in question. The relevant facts for disposal of this appeal are that the complainant/appellant purchased a motor cycle on 5.6.2000 for a sum of Rs. 40,700. The said motor cycle was insured with the respondent No. 2 for one year from 13.6.2000 to 12.6.2001. The appellant while coming by the vehicle on 3.1.2001 some robbers took away the motor cycle at the point of fire arms. The First Information Report was lodged on the same day being Kairon PS case No. 5/2991. Simultaneously the Insurance Company was also informed on 6.1.2001. The complainant lodged the claim before the Insurance Company However, the claim was repudiated on 27.3.2002 on the ground of non-submission of the relevant documents, namely registration certificate of the vehicle in question, as well as driving licence. The complainant having no alternative but to approach the District Consumer Forum by filing the complaint on 4.1.2003 which was registered as complaint case No. 1/2003.

On being noticed, the respondent Insurance Company appeared and filed response. The Insurance Company in their written statement alleged that the very initiation of the proceeding is not permissible under the Consumer Protection Act as well as the complainant failed to furnish the relevant documents. It is further submitted that since the vehicle was neither registered nor the valid licence was produced, hence the claim of the complainant was repudiated. The learned District Forum vide the impugned order has dismissed the complaint as stated above.

HENCE, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has challenged the order mainly on the ground that the vehicle was robbed at the point of revolver and hence the claim cannot be repudiated on the ground of non-furnishing of the driving licence inasmuch as there has been no deficiency or laches on his part. Secondly, the vehicle could not be registered because of some unavoidable reason and even if it is not registered, the Motor Vehicles Rules provide that one has to pay late fee of Rs. 100 for doing registration of the vehicle and the same cannot be a ground for repudiation of the claim. In opposition, however, Mr. Alok Lal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 submits that the registration of the vehicle is mandatory as per the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and unless and until the vehicle is registered, the same cannot be allowed to ply on the road. It is further submitted that for the purpose of deciding the claim under the policy, the registration of the vehicle is a must and in absence of which the Insurance Company cannot indemnify the insured in terms of the policy.

MR. Jaiswal appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 3, namely, the State Bank of India Madhupur Branch submitted with reference to the averments made in the written statement to the effect that in spite of the assurance and the agreement arrived at between the insured and Bank, wherein the Bank was shown as owner of the vehicle in terms of the agreement till the loan amount is fully discharged. Admittedly a sum of Rs. 42,000 and odd was taken from the State Bank of India on the condition that the complainant will pay back the loan amount in 42 equal Installments @ Rs. 1.000 per month but not a single farthing has been paid to the Bank till date. Even, the incidence of robbery of the vehicle was not informed to the Bank. Be that as it may, the question arises as to whether the claim of the complainant can be repudiated on the ground of non-submission of the registration certificate including the driving licence. According to the agreement arrived at between the complainant and the Bank, the vehicle was to be registered within one month from the date of purchase. Admittedly, the same was not registered till the date, the vehicle was robbed. So far as the non-production of the driving licence is concerned, this question is no longer res integra in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Jitendra Kumar v. Oriental Insurance Co. reported in IV (2003) SLT 497, wherein it has been held that the accident took place without negligence and/or laches on the part of driver and accordingly the Insurance Company was directed to indemnify the loss. So far as the non-production of the registration certificate is concerned, as stated above, admittedly, the registration was not done and under the Motor Vehicles Act, it is incumbent upon the owner to get the vehicle registered and then ply on the road. The question now arises if the vehicle is not registered, the Insurance Company can deny the claim. It may be mentioned here that no such terms and conditions have been mentioned under the policy, albeit the Motor Vehicles Act envisages that the registration of the vehicle is mandatory one and if the registration is not made within the prescribed time even, then registration can be obtained by paying late fee of Rs. 100. In that view of the matter, we are of the view that even non registration of the vehicle cannot be a ground for repudiation of the just claim under the policy. The learned District Forum in our view has failed to exercise its jurisdiction while passing the impugned order. Accordingly, the order dated 7.11.2003 is hereby set aside and consequently this appeal is allowed. Before parting with the order, we direct the Insurance Company to pay the insured amount to the respondent Bank since admittedly the loan amount has not been discharged by the complainant in terms of the agreement till date. The balance amount, if any, is still due, the Bank will be at liberty to realise the same through the process of the law. This appeal is accordingly allowed but without cost. Appeal allowed.