Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/17/1150

RAKESH AGRAWAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

NEW INDIA INSU.CO.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

SH.S.R.SONI

26 Jul 2023

ORDER

M. P. STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,                         

                             PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

 

                                      FIRST APPEAL NO. 1150 OF 2017

(Arising out of order dated 26.05.2017 passed in C.C.No.449/2014 by District Commission, Satna)

 

RAKESH AGRAWAL,

S/O LATE SHRI LALCHANDRA AGRAWAL,

R/O BIHARI CHOWK, DISTRICT-SATNA (M.P.)                                                     … APPELLANT.

 

                Versus

 

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD.

THROUGH DIVISIONAL OFFICE,

REWA ROAD, SATNA (M.P.)                                                                                   … RESPONDENT.

                              

                                 

BEFORE :

            HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHANTANU S. KEMKAR   :  PRESIDENT

            HON’BLE DR. (MRS) MONIKA MALIK                         :  MEMBER

                     

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

                Shri S. R. Soni, learned counsel for the appellant.

           Shri Mahavir Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the respondent.                

                

                                                  O R D E R

                                       (Passed on 26.07.2023)

                   The following order of the Commission was delivered by Dr.(Mrs) Monika Malik, Member:

           

                   This appeal by the complainant/appellant (hereinafter referred to as ‘appellant’) is directed against the order dated 26.05.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Satna (for short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.449/2014, whereby the complaint filed by him has been dismissed.

2.                Briefly put, facts of the case are that the appellant is owner of a truck bearing registration no. MP-19 HA-0760 which was insured with the opposite party/respondent-the New India Assurance Co. Ltd (hereinafter

-2-

referred to as ‘insurance company’) vide policy number 45040031120100000474 for a period w.e.f. 14.04.2012 to 13.04.2013 for insured declared value (IDV) of Rs.7,18,750/-. During the currency of policy cover period on 21.06.2012, the subject vehicle broke down on a railway track, and eventually got hit by a train.  The subject vehicle was completely damaged and the insurance company was duly intimated.  The surveyor and loss assessor was appointed in the matter.  The insurance company however denied the claim as ‘No Claim’ vide letter dated 17.09.2013 without any justification. Therefore, the appellant approached the District Commission, seeking relief.  

3.                The opposite party-insurance company in its reply before the District Commission submitted that the Surveyor, who was appointed in the matter has made net assessment to the extent of Rs.4,37,250/- but the appellant did not provide requisite documents to the insurance company for settlement of his claim. Therefore, the claim file was closed.  The insurance company further submitted that the claim was not payable since the subject vehicle was not having valid fitness certificate on the date of the accident. 

4.                Heard.  Perused the record.

5.                Learned counsel for the complainant/appellant argued that the appellant had deposited Rs.500/- towards fee for issuance of fitness certificate with the RTO on 17.05.2012.  This shows that the appellant had

-3-

already deposited the amount with the RTO before the date of accident but the fitness certificate could not be issued by the RTO. The appellant had deposited the requisite charges and therefore he cannot be held responsible.  The appellant therefore deserves the claim amount, at least on non-standard basis.  The District Commission has erroneously dismissed the complaint and the impugned order deserves to be set-aside.

6.                Learned counsel for the insurance company argued that the fitness certificate of the subject vehicle had expired on 20.05.2011 but the appellant was still using the subject vehicle.  On the date of the accident, the subject vehicle got stuck on railway crossing because it was in bad condition and was not fit for use.  The truck was hit by a train while it had broken down on the railway crossing. He argued that the insurance company has rightly denied the claim as the subject vehicle was running without any valid fitness certificate and this appeal is devoid of any merit which deserves to be dismissed.   

7.                From perusal of the record, it is evident from Exhibit C-16 that appellant had deposited Rs.500/- with the RTO on 17.05.2012 for issuance of fitness certificate which had expired on 20.05.2011. A letter dated 07.09.2013 annexed as Exhibit R-8 in the record is a certificate issued by the RTO, wherein it is stated that no fitness certificate was issued by

 

-4-

21.06.2012 i.e. the date of the accident. Clearly, the subject vehicle was being run on the date of accident, without any valid fitness certificate.          

8.                It is relevant to mention specific provisions of ‘Motor Vehicles Act’, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘M V Act’) in order to address the issue involved in the matter. In Chapter IV, Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which deals with registration of motor vehicles, provides thus:

39. Necessity for registration—No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this Chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner:

                   Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a motor vehicle in possession of a dealer subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government.

 

9.                Section 56 of the ‘M V Act’ deals with certificate of fitness of transport vehicles, which reads thus:

56. Certificate of fitness of transport vehicles—(1) Subject to the provisions of sections 59 and 60, a transport vehicle shall not be deemed to be validly registered for the purposes of Section 39, unless it carries a certificate of fitness in such form containing such particulars and information as may be prescribed by the Central Government, issued by the prescribed authority, or by an authorized testing station mentioned in sub-section (2), to the effect that the vehicle complies for the time being with all the requirements of this Act and the rules made thereunder:                

Provided that where the prescribed authority or the ‘authorized testing station” refuses to issue such certificate, it shall supply the owner of the vehicle with its reasons in writing for such refusal:

Provided….

(2) …..

(3) ….

(4)….

(5)…..

                                    -5-

(6)….

(7)….

 

10.              Chapter XIII lays down provisions for Offence, Penalties & Procedure under ‘M V Act’. Under this Chapter, Section 192 of ‘M V Act’ is in relation to using vehicle without registration and reads thus:

192. Using vehicle without registration—(1) Whoever drives a motor vehicle or causes or allows a motor vehicle to be used in contravention of the provisions of section 39 shall be punishable for the first offence with a fine which may extend to five thousand rupees but shall not be less than two thousand rupees for a second or subsequent offence with imprisonment which may extend to one year or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees but shall not be less than five thousand rupees or with both:

Provided that the court may, for reasons to be recorded, impose a lesser punishment.

(2)…..

(3)….

[Explanation—Use of a motor vehicle in contravention of the provisions of section 56 shall be deemed to be a contravention of the provisions of section 39 and shall be punishable in the same manner as provided in sub-section (1)]

                  

11.              A collective reading of the aforesaid sections makes it clear that no motor vehicle can be driven in any public place unless the vehicle is registered and also that a transport vehicle shall not be deemed to be validly registered for the purposes of Section 39 unless it carries a certificate of fitness.  It is noteworthy that where driving the unregistered motor vehicle in contravention of Section 39 is laid down as a punishable offence, use of a motor vehicle in contravention of the provisions of section 56 is deemed to be contravention of the provisions of section 39 and assigned to be

-6-

punishable in the same manner as provided for contravention of Section 39 of the MVAct.

12.              In the instant matter, certainly the subject vehicle, at the time of accident was being used without fitness certificate issued by the RTO. The appellant has though maintained that requisite renewal charges were deposited by him, but the fact remains that the fitness certificate had expired on 20.05.2011 and the subject vehicle was being used without valid fitness certificate.

13.              Absence of fitness certificate of commercial vehicle constitutes fundamental breach of policy condition. Under Section 56 of the ‘Motor Vehicles Act’ a valid fitness certificate is required to be maintained so as to comply with the requirements of the ‘M V Act’ and the rules made thereunder. The appellant has claimed 75% of the claim amount on non-standard basis.  We conclude that in the given circumstances, the insurance company is not liable to pay any claim since there is fundamental breach of policy conditions and violation of the provisions of the ‘M V Act’.

14.              In wake of the foregoing discussion, we do not find any irregularity or infirmity in the impugned order, which is hereby upheld.

15.              As a result, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.

 

        (JUSTICE SHANTANU S. KEMKAR)       (DR. MONIKA MALIK)                     

                           PRESIDENT                                      MEMBER