PER VINEETA RAI, MEMBER
1. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and another (hereinafter referred to as the have filed this revision petition being aggrieved by the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T.Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) in First Appeal No.103 of 2011 wherein Pearls Buildwell Infrastructure Ltd. and others were Respondents.
2. The facts of the case according to the Respondent No.1, who was the original complainant before the District Forum are that it had placed an order with Respondent No.2 [M/s Goel Motors(P) Ltd.] for purchase of a Mahindra Bolero Vehicle for which he prepared a demand draft of Rs.5,75,600/- in response to the quotations supplied by Respondent No.2. However, the vehicle could not be supplied because of its non-availability with Respondent No.2 and therefore, it was proposed to Respondent No.1 to get the vehicle at the same price through Respondent No.3 (M/s Snow View Automobiles Pvt. Ltd.) and a revised purchase order was prepared for the vehicle along with a demand draft for Rs.5,75,600/-. The vehicle was thereafter delivered by Respondent No.3 to Respondent No.1 on 11.12.2008 but with a back-dated invoice as well as sale certificate dated 01.12.2008. Respondent No.1 thereafter got the vehicle insured from the Petitioner/Insurance Company for the period from 11.12.2008 to 10.12.2009 for Rs.5,46,820/- and against the Column œRegistration No. and Plate? in the cover-note, the Petitioner/Insurance Company wrote œNew. On the night of 3rd and 4th January, 2009, the said vehicle was stolen and information in this regard was given by the Respondent to the Police as well as to the Petitioner/Insurance Company. After a thorough investigation, the police authorities failed to trace the vehicle and a non-traceable report was submitted by the Police on 23.04.2009. Petitioner in the meantime got the matter investigated through its investigator Shri A.P. Singh but later the claim was repudiated vide letter dated 08.09.2009 on the grounds that Respondent had purchased the vehicle on 01.12.2008 and the temporary number allotted to the same at the time of purchase was valid for only one month and expired on 31.12.2008. Therefore, since the vehicle was not registered at the time of theft, the claim was not tenable. On receipt of the letter of repudiation, Respondent informed the Petitioner about the reasons for the back dated invoice etc. and also stated that there was no mention of temporary registration number in the cover-note and in the column of œRegistration No. and place?, only the word œNew? was written by the Petitioner/Insurance Company. However, Petitioner did not accept the above explanation, aggrieved by which Respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum requesting that the Petitioner be directed to pay the Respondent, Rs.5,46,820/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of filing of claim, Rs.1,50,000/- for physical and mental harassment and Rs.30,000/- as litigation cost.
3. Petitioner/Insurance Company denied the above allegations and stated that the claim was rightly repudiated since the Respondent had violated both the terms and conditions of the insurance policy as well as the statutory provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act which inter alia required that no person shall drive any motor vehicle unless it is registered in accordance with the Motor Vehicles Act. Admittedly, on the date of the theft the vehicle was not registered and the temporary registration had also expired.
4. The District Forum after hearing both parties allowed the complaint and directed the Petitioner to pay Respondent, Rs.5,46,820/- with interest @ 18% per annum, Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.7,000/- as litigation cost. In case the order was not complied with within 45 days, Petitioner was directed to pay the Respondent, Rs.5,96,820/- with interest @ 18% from the date of repudiation of the claim till the date of realization besides Rs.7,000/- as costs.
5. Aggrieved by this order, Petitioner/Insurance Company filed an appeal with the State Commission which dismissed the same by observing as follows:
œEven if, it is assumed, for the sake arguments, that the vehicle was allegedly given a temporary number on 01.12.2008, as per R-1, and the period of temporary registration expired on 30.12.2008, but it was not registered with the Registering Authority, when the theft of the same was committed, in our considered opinion, the rightful claim of the complainant, could not be legally repudiated by OP-1, as according to the proviso engrafted of Section 43 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, even after the prescribed period, on payment of such fees, if any, as may be fixed by the Registering Authority, the vehicle could be got registered. Similar principle of law, was laid down, in Rajendra Prasad Tiwary Vs. New India Assurance Co. and Ors. - I(2007) CPJ 391. Even otherwise, there was no nexus or connection between the theft of the vehicle, which was duly insured, and non-registration thereof. The registration of the vehicle and the incident of theft, were two different matters, and there was no connectivity or linkage or any connection between the two. The District Forum was also right, in holding so. The findings of the District Forum in this regard being correct are affirmed.?
The State Commission while upholding the order of the District Forum also levied cost of Rs.5,000/- on the Petitioner to be paid to the Respondent.
Hence, the present revision petition.
Learned Counsel for Petitioner in his oral submissions essentially reiterated the position as stated before the Fora below. Counsel for Petitioner further stated that the claim was rightly repudiated since the vehicle had not been registered on the date of the theft even though the period of temporary registration had expired since the vehicle had been bought on 01.01.2009. Failure to obtain registration of the vehicle apart from being a violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy was also a violation of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act which inter alia, provides that no person shall drive any motor vehicle unless it is registered in accordance with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. Further, under section 43 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the temporary registration is valid only for one month and therefore, the Respondent was negligent in not getting his vehicle registered with the R.T.O. within the stipulated period thus violating the statutory provisions and also diminishing the chances for recovery of the vehicle.
6. We have heard learned Counsel for Petitioner and have gone through the evidence on record. The facts regarding the insurance of the vehicle and its theft are not in dispute. It is also admitted that the vehicle did not have a permanent registration at the time of its theft. There are, however, a number of judgments of the Apex Court as well as of this Commission including in a recent case [Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Swami Devi Dayal “ R.P.No.497 of 2012 (decided on 14th February, 2012)] in which it was held that the insurance company is not entitled to repudiate the claim only on the ground that the vehicle had not been registered. The judgment of this Commission is a binding precedent and we respectfully follow the same.
7. Under the circumstances, we find no error in the order of the Fora below and thus uphold the order of the State Commission. However, we are of the view that interest @ 18% per annum on the amount of Rs.5,96,820/- as awarded by the District Forum and upheld by the State Commission is excessive and, therefore, reduce the same to 9% per annum. Petitioner/Insurance Company is directed to pay the awarded amount with interest @ 9% within a period of 8 weeks failing which the entire amount will carry interest @ 18% per annum.
The revision petition is disposed of with the above directions.