Binoy Kumar, Presiding Member
1. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings and Orders passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad (for short, the District Forum) and the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula (for short, the State Commission), the Opposite Party – National Insurance Company Ltd. filed the present Revision Petition No. 1330 of 2017 under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, the Act). The Complaint filed by the Complainant (Respondent herein) in District Forum was allowed and the Opposite Party was directed to pay Rs. 4,75,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum alongwith Rs. 7,700/- as compensation and cost of litigation to the Complainant.
2. Aggrieved by this Order dated 28.01.2015 of the District Forum, the Opposite Party filed Appeal before the State Commission, which, vide its Order dated 02.11.2016, dismissed the Appeal.
3. As the District Forum and the State Commission have comprehensively addressed the facts of the case, which led to filing of the Complaint and passing of the Orders, I do not find it relevant to reiterate the same, when the findings of both the fora are concurrent on facts.
4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and considered their submissions.
5. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner / Insurance Company has rightly repudiated the claim and that the Complaint should be dismissed. The Complainant / Respondent has violated Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, which makes it mandatory for motor vehicle to be registered. He argued that the State Commission has erroneously came to the conclusion that the registration is not material, if the vehicle is in a stationary position. He cited the Order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Narinder Singh vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., (2014) 9 SCC 324 in support of his arguments. He also argued that the FIR before the Police was filed with the delay of 6 days after the incident and thus is of violation of condition no. 1 of the Policy. He cited the Order of this Commission in Siraj Khan vs. Mahindra Finance, 2012 NCDRC 324, wherein it was held that the time is of essence and delay in lodging FIR and sending information about theft to the Insurer would be fatal to the recovery of the insured vehicle and repudiation of claim would be justified.
6. The learned Counsel for the Respondent / Complainant argued that this is a case of concurrent finding and the scope of Revision Petition is very limited in view of a large number of the Orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He submitted that the delay of ‘6’ days in lodging the FIR is not a major delay and can be ignored. Further, the vehicle was not moving and was in a stationary position, and therefore, there is no violation of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The repudiation is vague and therefore, the claim be allowed and the Revision Petition dismissed.
7. I have gone through the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties and carefully considered the record.
8. The Insurance Policy was taken on 10.09.2010. The Tractor was stolen on 12.01.2011. The vehicle was registered only after the incident of theft. The temporary registration had expired. Though the FIR was filed on 18.01.2011, the Insurance Company was informed only on 20.05.2011 i.e. after delay of about 5 months. Evidently, this delay of about 5 months has not been properly explained by the Respondent and is the violation of one of the conditions of the Insurance Policy.
9. Evidently, the vehicle was not registered at the time of theft. There is no record or evidence to suggest if the application for registration was filed before the theft. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sushil Kumar Godara, Civil Appeal No. 5887 of 2021, decided on 30.09.2021, held that a vehicle without a valid registration which is or has been used in a public place or any other place would constitute a fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of the contract of insurance even if the vehicle is not being driven at the time it is stolen. The relevant portion of the Order is as under:
o 14. In the present case, the temporary registration of the respondent's vehicle had expired on 28-7-2011. Not only was the vehicle driven, but also taken to another city, where it was stationed overnight in a place other than the respondent's premises. There is nothing on record to suggest that the respondent had applied for registration or that he was awaiting registration. In these circumstances, the ratio of Narinder Singh (supra) applies, in the opinion of this court. That Narinder Singh (supra) was in the context of an accident, is immaterial. Despite this, the respondent plied his vehicle and took it to Jodhpur, where the theft took place. It is of no consequence, that the car was not plying on the road, when it was stolen; the material fact is that concededly, it was driven to the place from where it was stolen, after the expiry of temporary registration. But for its theft, the respondent would have driven back the vehicle. What is important is this Court's opinion of the law, that when an insurable incident that potentially results in liability occurs, there should be no fundamental breach of the conditions contained in the contract of insurance. Therefore, on the date of theft, the vehicle had been driven/used without a valid registration, amounting to a clear violation of Sections 39 and 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. This results in a fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of the policy, as held by this Court in Narinder Singh (supra), entitling the insurer to repudiate the policy.
Even earlier, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Narinder Singh vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 8463 of 2014, decided on 04.09.2014, held that non-registration of vehicle is a fundamental breach of Insurance Policy.
10. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in matters relating to registration of vehicle and its usage without proper registration, in my opinion, the repudiation by the Petitioner / Insurance Company is valid and that the Orders of the State Commission and District Forum are bad in law and therefore, deserve to be set aside.
11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed and the Orders of the State Commission and the District Forum are set aside.
