NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Revision Petition No.309 OF 2007
(from the order dated 17.01.2007 in F A No. 535 of 2005 of
the State Commission,
Sanjeev Kumar Petitioner (s)
The Branch Manager, Respondent (s)
United India Insurance Co. Ltd & Ors
MRS. RAJYALAKSHMI RAO, MEMBER
For the Petitioner Shri Sanjeev Kumar - IN PERSON
For the Respondent Shri Kishore Rawat, Advocate
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and order dated 17.01.2007 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar, Patna in appeal No. 535 of 2005, the complainant has preferred this revision petition.
By the impugned order, the State Commission has set aside the order dated 01.08.2005 passed by the District Forum, Buxar in Complaint Case No. 27 of 2005 directing the Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.3,89,473/- with interest @ 12% per annum and also awarding compensation of Rupees one lakh.
It is the case of the
complainant that the complainant is serving with the United Bank of
Unfortunately, at the night time, the vehicle was stolen. Complainant immediately lodged an FIR with Buxar Police Station and the case was registered against unknown persons. Claim was lodged with the Insurance Company. However, to his surprise after a lapse of eight months, the Insurance Company offered Rs.2,91,000/- i.e. approximately 75% of the insured amount with the condition that the complainant should accept it as a full and final settlement of his claim. That was not accepted by the complainant, because, the complainant has taken loan from the Bank and that on the date of the purchase, the vehicle was stolen.
As the Insurance Company did not pay the amount, the complainant was required to approach the District Forum. The District Forum as stated above, directed the Insurance Company to pay the full insured value i.e. Rs.3,89,473/- to the insured with interest and with compensation.
Against that order the Insurance Company preferred an appeal and the appeal was allowed on the ground that the vehicle was not registered with the RTO and therefore the offer of settlement of the claim on a non-standard basis was just and proper, therefore, there was no deficiency in service by the Insurance Company in settling the claim at a lesser amount.
In our view, the impugned order passed by the State Commission cannot be justified, because, under Section 40 of the Motor Vehicles Act, every owner of the Motor vehicle is required to get it registered by a registering authority in whose jurisdiction he is residing or the place of business where the vehicle is normally kept. In the present case, it is the say of the complainant that he is the resident of Buxar and therefore after purchase of the vehicle he took the vehicle to Buxar. Unfortunately, as the said date being Sunday and the RTO office was not open he kept the vehicle during the night time at his residence from where theft took place. Further, with regard to obtaining temporary registration also it was not possible for the complainant to get it registered, because, it was not a working day for the offices of RTO. In these set of circumstances, the offer made by the Insurance Company on non-standard basis was not justified.
Further, the petitioner who is appearing in person, has pointed out that even the Divisional Office at Allahabad had also recommended that full sum insured after deducting Rs.1000/- be paid to the complainant which recommendation was not accepted by the Regional Office of the Insurance Company and it offered only Rs.2,91,000/-.
The petitioner has also pointed out that as per the terms of the Insurance Policy, there is no violation of any term. It is true that under the Motor Vehicle Act, using the vehicle without registration is a punishable offence, but at the same time, in the present case, the complainant has not used the vehicle in the ordinary course but has only brought it to his residence and on the same day the vehicle was stolen. Therefore, the Insurance Company ought to have settled the claim on he basis of the sum insured.
In the result, the revision petition is allowed. The impugned order
passed by the State Commission is set aside and the Insurance Company is
directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,89,473/- to the complainant with interest @ 12%
per annum from the date i.e.