United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr vs Kesarlal Jat & Anr

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. against the order dated 10.12.2015 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan (in short 'the State Commission') passed in First Appeal No.568/2015.

Brief facts of the case are that on 06.12.2012 respondent No.1/complainant had purchased one vehicle from respondent No.2. On that day, the respondent No.2 had issued one temporary registration No.RJ14-Temp C-3676, which was stated to be valid for one month. On 08.01.2013 this vehicle met with an accident and its accident claim was repudiated by Insurance Company on the ground that the vehicle was being plied without registration. Another ground of repudiation was that the intimation of the accident was given to the Insurance Company on 07.2.2013 i.e. roughly about after one month and the intimation was received from the respondent No.2 rather than from the complainant.

Aggrieved by the repudiation, the complainant filed a consumer complaint bearing No.195/2013 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tonk (in short 'the District Forum'). The complaint was resisted by the Insurance Company by filing the written statement and the grounds of repudiation were reiterated. The District Forum vide its order dated 03.03.2015 allowed the complaint as under:-

"Hence the opposite party Insurance Company is directed to pay the complainant Rs.1,78,363/- for damages to his insured vehicle Tavera RJ26-UA-1432 (eng No.159175, chassis No.010238) with interest @ 9% per annum on this amount w.e.f. 30.08.2013 the date of filing complaint within two months. Besides this Rs.10,000/- to be paid for mental agony within two months."

Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the Insurance Company preferred an appeal bearing No.568 of 2015 before the State Commission. The State Commission modified the order of the District Forum as follows and decided the appeal as under:-

".....in our considered opinion only the amount assessed by the surveyor along with the amount of turbo charges Rs.28391.38 and oil pump Rs.5242/- can be allowed to the complainant. The complainant is entitled to receive 75% on non standard basis of this amount. The remaining order will remain unchanged. This appeal is admitted with above modifications."

Hence the present revision petition by the Insurance Company.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as respondent No.1. None was present on behalf of respondent No.2 inspite of service.

Learned counsel for the petitioner Insurance Company stated that the District Forum and the State Commission have relied upon the fact that the application for regular registration was submitted on 8.1.2013 when the fee was also deposited. It has been held by the fora below that as the accident also occurred on 8.1.2013 therefore, on that day, the application for permanent registration was submitted. Hence, no breach of Provision of Motor Vehicle Act,1988 is made out. It was argued by the learned counsel that the accident had happened on 6:00 am in the morning and fees could only be deposited after 10:00 O' clock when the office was opened. Thus, clearly at the time of accident there was no regular registration of the vehicle.

It was further contended by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company that under Section 192 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, there is a provision that a Motor vehicle can be plied on road in medical emergency, however if the vehicle is so used the intimation is required to be given to the Transport Authority within a period of one week. The complainant has taken the plea of the provision by stating that the complainant was going to hospital for the treatment of Mr. Bhanwarlal, though no evidence or any treatment papers or any other document has been filed to show that Bhanwarlal was ill and required medical treatment. Moreover, no intimation was given to the Transport Authority within a period of one week in this regard. Thus, this plea of the complainant cannot be accepted without any evidence.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/complainant stated that the vehicle was being used for taking Mr. Bhanwarlal to the hospital as mentioned in the FIR and therefore, the same has to be taken at its face value. In the accident two relatives of the complainant died and therefore, there was no question of Mr. Bhanwarlal to be taken to the hospital for further treatment as everybody got busy with the rites relating to the deceased family members. Obviously, there was no question of informing the Transport Authority within a period of one week as given in the provision of Section 192 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 at that time as the last rites of the deceased were continuing.

I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the material on record. It is the case of the complainant that the accident occurred on 08.01.2013 at 6:00 am when the vehicle was taking Bhanwarlal to hospital for his treatment though the Insurance Company is disputing this fact, however this fact is mentioned in the FIR and therefore, the same has to be taken at its face value. Nobody will mention a wrong fact of this nature in the FIR in order to take advantage on some future date and particularly at that time when their family members have died in the accident. Now, the breach of provision of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 is to be examined. Section 192 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 allows the use of car without registration number in a medical emergency though the intimation of this use has to be given to the Transport Authority within a period of one week. In the present case, it cannot be denied that the vehicle was being used for medical emergency on the basis of the fact mentioned in the FIR. Now, the only further question to be seen is whether intimation was given to the Transport Authority within a period of one week. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1/complainant has contended that two of family members of the complainant died in the accident and therefore, everybody in the family is busy in the rites relating to the deceased family members and it was not possible for anybody to give intimation to the Transport Authority. Further, it was not necessary by that time as the regular registration was already applied on 08.01.2013 and the regular registration was also obtained on 10.1.2013. In my view, if there are two deaths of family members, nobody in the family can give information for such fulfilment of the procedural requirement as given in Section192 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. Thus, clearly, in my view the use of the vehicle on 08.01.2013 at the time of accident was for a medical emergency and it was not possible for family members to give intimation to the Transport Authority within a period of one week. Thus, insurance claim cannot be repudiated on this ground in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

Now coming to another ground of repudiation, learned counsel for the Insurance Company has stated that the intimation of accident was given after a gap of 30 days, which is violation of condition No.1 of the policy as the intimation is required to be given immediately to the Insurance Company. In the present case, the accident cannot be disputed as two family members of the complainant died and many injured and a proper FIR lodged in the matter. As two family members of the family had died in the accident, none of the other family members may have recognized the need to furnish information to the Insurance Company as quickly as possible as everybody must have been busy in performing the last rites of the deceased family members. It is the case of the complainant that the complainant still informed respondent No.2 from whom the vehicle was purchased. There has been some delay on the part of the respondent No.2, who only intimated the Insurance Company on 07.2.2013. As this was not a case of theft, so, no right of the Insurance Company to search the vehicle has been lost away or curtailed by late intimation of the accident to the Insurance Company. Thus, the delay in the present case seems to be condonable in the facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, in my view, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the delay in giving intimation to the Insurance Company cannot be allowed to become fatal to the claim of the insurance from the complainant.

Based on the above discussion, I do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order dated 10.12.2015 of the State Commission which calls for any interference from this Commission. Accordingly, the revision petition No.1061 of 2016 is dismissed.