GAYATRI DEVI NISHAD V. V.K. MOTORS WORKS & 2 ORS.

1. GAYATRI DEVI NISHAD
S/O. SHRI PARGANIYA RAM NISHAD, ADDRESS
WEATHER DEPARTMENT LAL PUR,
RAIPUR
Versus

THROUGH PROPRIETOR SHYAMRAJ VISHWAKARMA,
S/O. LT. PARASNATH VISHWAKARMA NEAR NEW
POLICE LINE, OPP PETROL PUMP, FATESH MARKET OPP
NARESHWAR MANDIR TALAB, TIKARAPARA,
RAIPUR
CHHATTISGARH
2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
JEEVAN BIMA PARISAR, JEEVAN BIMA MARG, PANDRI
RAIPUR TEHSIL AND
DISTRICT-RAIPUR
CHHATTISGARH
3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
REGISTERED AND MAIN OFFICE 24, WHITE ROAD,
CHENNAI-600014
Case No. : REVISION PETITION NO. 1076-1077 OF 2019

Date of Judgement : 01 December 2023

Judges : DR. INDER JIT SINGH 

For Petitioner : MOHD. ANIS UR REHMAN, ADVOCATE

For Respondent : MR. NISHANT GOEL, ADVOCATE FOR R-1
MR. ANIMESH SINHA, ADVOCATE WITH
MR. SHUBHAM BUDHIRAJA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 & R-3

Facts:

  • OP-1 initially assured free repairs but later demanded payment. This led to complaint alleging deficiency in service.

District Forum Order:

  • Partly allowed complaint, directed OPs to pay Rs. 6,47,300 at 9% interest and Rs 25,000 compensation for mental agony.

State Commission Order:

  • Allowed appeals filed by OPs, dismissed original complaint.

Revision Petition Grounds:

  • Insurance claim repudiation incorrect and not based on valid grounds. Reliance on incorrect version by insurer wrong.
  • Order based on technicalities rather than merits.

Repudiation based on alleged breach of road tax payment provisions seems vague. Specific clause violation not established.

  • Facts different from cases laws cited. Here, valid insurance existed at time of incident. Delayed tax payment not explicit breach.
  • Fire accidental, no willful default by OP-1. With valid insurance, only insurance company liable as per contract.
  • Hence, State Commission order set aside. Insurance company directed to pay assessed loss with interest.

    • Referred Laws and Sections:

    • Referred Case Laws:
      1. United India Insurance Co. vs Sushil Kumar Godara
      2. Narinder Singh vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd
      3. Naveen Kumar vs National Insurance Co. Ltd
      4. Canara Bank v. United India Insurance Co. LtdStml 1

    Download Court Copy : https://dreamlaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/task-3-nitishu.pdf

    Full text of judgement :

    4. Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Commission and other case records are that:-

    5. Vide Order dated 26.11.2018, in the CC no. 508/2015, the District Forum has partly accepted the complaint and directed OPs to pay a sum of Rs. 6,47,300/- @ 9% p.a. and to pay compensation of Rs. 25,000/- towards mental agony.

    7. Petitioner has challenged the said Order dated 24.04.2019 of the State Commission mainly on following grounds:

    8. Heard counsels of both sides. Contentions/pleas of the parties, on various issues raised in the RP, Written Arguments, and Oral Arguments advanced during the hearing, are summed up below.

    vii. The counsel relied on following judgements:

    b. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2011) 11 SCC 269

    9. In United India Insurance Co. vs. Sushil Kumar Godara, Civil Appeal No. 5887/2021, decided on 30.09.2021, Hon’ble Supreme Court held 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.” In this case, the temporary registration of vehicle had expired on the date of incident, the respondent had not applied for registration or that he was awaiting registration, the vehicle was not only driven, but also taken to another city, where it was stationed overnight, and got stolen there. Hon’ble Court, applying the ratio of Narinder Singh vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2014) 9 SCC 324 observed that this case was in the context of an accident is immaterial. 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 a place from where it was stolen, after the expiry of temporary registration. But for its theft, the respondent would have driven back the vehicle. In Narinder Singh (Supra) the claim was in the context of an accident, involving a vehicle, the temporary registration of which had expired. The Hon’ble Court held that the insurer was not liable, and observed that:-

    “11. A bare perusal of Section 39 shows that no person shall drive the motor vehicle in any public place without any valid registration granted by the registering authority in accordance with the provisions of the Act. However, according to Section 43, the owner of the vehicle may apply to the registering authority for temporary registration and a temporary registration mark. If such temporary registration is granted by the authority, the same shall be valid only for a period not exceeding one month. The proviso to Section 43 clarified that the period of one month may be extended for such further period by the registering authority only in a case where a temporary registration is granted in respect of chassis to which body has not been attached and the same is detained in a workshop beyond the said period of one month for being fitted with a body or unforeseen circumstances beyond the control of the owner.

    12. Indisputably, a temporary registration was granted in respect of the vehicle in question, which had expired on 11-1-2006 and the alleged accident took place on 2-2-2006 when the vehicle was without any registration. Nothing has been brought on record by the appellant to show that before or after 11-1-2006, when the period of temporary registration expired, the appellant, owner of the vehicle, either applied for permanent registration as contemplated under Section 39 of the Act or made any application for extension of period as temporary registration on the ground of some special reasons. In our view, therefore, using a vehicle on the public road without any registration is not only an offence punishable under Section 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act but also a fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of policy contract.”

    10. In Naveen Kumar vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (RP/250/2019, decided on 26.11.2015, NCDRC in a reference, held as follows:-

    ambiguity, the principle of Contra proferentem applies, where vague repudiation grounds without specific violations may not hold weight. This principle suggests that in cases of ambiguity, the interpretation should be against the party drafting the contract, placing the onus on the insurer to provide explicit and unambiguous clauses when repudiating a claim. It was held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Canara Bank v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2020) 3 SCC 455 that:-

    “Insurance Policy must be read holistically so as to give effect to reasonable expectations of all the parties including the insured and the beneficiaries- it must be interpreted in a commercially sensible manner coverage clauses to be read broadly, and ambiguity, if any, to be resolved in favour of insured-exclusions to be read narrowly.”

    12. In view of above, we conclude that action of Insurance Co. in repudiating the complainants claim is not correct. When the incident of fire happened at the workshop of OP-1, the vehicle was covered under a valid Insurance policy, Complainant was in no way responsible for the incident, mere fact of non-payment of road tax for certain period prior to this date, which was paid subsequent to date of incident, is not a valid reason to repudiate the claim. Hence, the State Commission went wrong in setting aside the order of District Forum and dismissing the complaint. Hence, the order of State Commission cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside.

    14. The pending IAs in the case, if any, also stand disposed off.