Written By: Kavya (2nd-year law student), Christ(Deemed to be University)Delhi, NCR.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
The brief facts of the case as per the petitioner/complainant are that the petitioner has got his
turbo truck vehicle with registration no. RJ 21 GA 2617, insured from the respondent. The
period of insurance was from 06.07.2011 to 05.07.2012. According to the petitioner, the
turbo truck no. RJ 21 GA 1566 met with an accident on National Highway no. 15 and the
petitioner had to incur an expenditure of Rs. 13,50,819/- for its repair. A claim was filed but
the respondent has not settled the claim.
The respondent has stated in their reply that the surveyor had assessed the damage at Rs.
7,57,059/- in its survey report. There was no valid and effective fitness of the said vehicle of
the petitioner and due to violation of the policy conditions, this amount was not payable.
ISSUES OF THE CASE:
• Whether this case should be consider in the consumer protection act or in
motor vehicle act.
• Whether the compensation decided by the district forum correct as he
appealed state commission.
LAWS INVOLVED IN THE CASE :
• SECTION 39 (MOTOR VEHICLE ACT ) : 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.
• SECTION 56 (MOTOR VEHICLE ACT) : Certificate of fitness of transport
vehicles.—
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 there under: 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.
❖ The “authorized testing station” referred to in sub-section (1) means a vehicle service
station or public or private garage which the State Government, having regard to the
experience, training and ability of the operator of such station or garage and the testing
equipment and the testing personnel therein, may specify in accordance with the rules
made by the Central Government for regulation and control of such stations or garages.
❖ Subject to the provisions of sub-section (4), certificate of fitness shall remain effective for
such period as may be prescribed by the Central Government having regard to the objects
of this Act.
❖ The prescribed authority may for reasons to be recorded in writing cancel a certificate of
fitness at any time, if satisfied that the vehicle to which it relates no longer complies with
all the requirements of this Act and the rules made thereunder; and on such cancellation
the certificate of registration of the vehicle and any permit granted in respect of the
vehicle under Chapter V shall be deemed to be suspended until a new certificate of fitness
has been obtained: 1[Provided that no such cancellation shall be made by the prescribed
authority unless such prescribed authority holds such technical qualification as may be
prescribed or where the prescribed authority does not hold such technical qualification on
the basis of the report of an officer having such qualifications.]
❖ A certificate of fitness issued under this Act shall, while it remains effective be valid
throughout India.
• SECTION 21(b) (MOTOR VEHICLE ACT ): if such person is discharged or
acquitted before the expiry of the period aforesaid, until such discharge or acquittal,
as the case may be.
ANALYSIS:
The surveyor had estimated the damage at Rs.7,57,059/- in the survey report,
according to the responder. There was no legitimate and effective fitness of the
petitioner's vehicle, and this sum was not payable owing to a violation of the
insurance requirements.
"It is directed that the complainant is entitled to Rs. 7,57,059/- from the opposite party
and that the opposite party shall also pay interest @ 9% per annum from the date of
filing of the claim petition, i.e., 04.11.2013 until recovery," the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Nagaur ('the District Forum') observed in its order dated
04.11.2015 while allowing the complaint. In addition, the opposing party must pay
Rs. 5000/- in litigation costs and must additionally .
“In this case, the insurance of the vehicle and the accident is not disputed. On the date of
accident on 02.09.2011 there was no fitness certificate of the vehicle. According to the
complainant a receipt of Rs. 500/- was got issued from DTO, Merta City but the fitness
certificate was not issued and after two days, this accident occurred. In this regard in citation
IV (2006) CPJ 62 (NC) Aeroflot Soviet Airlines v. on the date when vehicle was set of fire,
there was no valid certificate of fitness, account of which this vehicle could not have been
brought on road, which is clear case of violation of conditions of warrantee of the policy in
view of which we see no ground to interfered with the well-reasoned order passed by the
State Commission”. Since there was no fitness certificate of the vehicle, in this
condition complainant could not have even brought this vehicle on the road.
CONCLUSION :
REKHA GUPTA:—
1.Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the respondent/opposite party filed an
appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission vide their order dated
05.05.2016 while setting aside the order of the The present revision petition has been filed
against the judgment dated 05.05.2016 of the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, Jaipur (‘the State Commission’) in Appeal no. 97 of 2016.
2. The brief facts of the case as per the petitioner/complainant are that the petitioner has
got his turbo truck vehicle with registration no. RJ 21 GA 2617, insured from the respondent.
The period of insurance was from 06.07.2011 to 05.07.2012. According to the petitioner, the
turbo truck no. RJ 21 GA 1566 met with an accident on National Highway no. 15 and the
petitioner had to incur an expenditure of Rs. 13,50,819/- for its repair. A claim was filed but
the respondent has not settled the claim.
3. The respondent has stated in their reply that the surveyor had assessed the damage at
Rs.7,57,059/- in its survey report. There was no valid and effective fitness of the said vehicle
of the petitioner and due to violation of the policy conditions, this amount was not payable.
4. In its order dated 04.11.2015, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nagaur
('the District Forum'), while allowing the complaint, stated: "It is directed that the
complainant is entitled to Rs. 7,57,059/- from the opposite party and that the opposite party
shall also pay interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, i.e.,
04.11.2013 until recovery." In addition, the opposing party shall pay the complaint Rs. 5000/-
for litigation fees and Rs. 5000/- for mental anguish.".
District Forum and dismissing the complaint held as under:
"In this scenario, the vehicle's insurance and the accident are not in dispute. There was no
vehicle fitness certificate on the day of the accident, September 2, 2011. According to the
complainant, a receipt for Rs. 500/- was issued by the DTO in Merta City, but no fitness
certificate was issued, and the accident occurred two days later. In this regard, it is
established in citation IV (2006) CPJ 62 (NC) Aeroflot Soviet Airlines v. United India
Insurance Company Ltd. that "it is admitted position that on the date when vehicle was set
afire, there was no valid certificate of fitness, as a result of which this vehicle could not have
been brought on road, which is clear case of violation of conditions of warrantee of the
manufacturer." In light of this policy, we see no cause to intervene with the State
Commission's well-reasoned order." Because the car lacked a fitness certificate, the
complainant could not have driven it on the road in this state. In this situation, the District
Forum's order appears arbitrary and liable to be overturned, and it is overturned."
As a result, the current petition for amendment has been filed.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has admitted that on the date of accident, i.e., 02.09.2011, the turbo truck vehicle did not
have valid fitness certificate as it had expired about a month and a half before the accident.
However, the petitioner had applied for a fitness certificate on 30.08.2011.
8. We've gone over everything on the record. The truck, which is a transport vehicle, did
not have a valid fitness certificate on the day of the collision. In the case of Aeroflot Soviet
Airlines v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., resolved on July 31, 2006, the National
Commission held as follows:
• A careful examination of Sections 39 and 56 of the Motor Vehicles Act reveals that
the vehicle could not have been driven in any public place unless the provisions of
Chapter IV of the Motor Vehicles Act were followed. No vehicle would be deemed
"validly registered for the purposes of section 39" unless it carried a certificate of
fitness, according to section 56 (1) with proviso.
• It is an agreed position that there was no valid certificate of fitness on the date the car
was set on fire, as a result of which this vehicle could not have been brought on the
road, which is a clear case of violation of the policy's guarantee requirements.
9. The facts of the case, as noted by the State Commission, apply to this case as well. We
further believe that, because the car had no fitness certificate on the date of the accident,
driving the vehicle without one was a violation of the insurance policy's terms and
conditions, and therefore he is not entitled to compensation under the policy.
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mrs Rubi (Chandra) Dutta v. United India Insurance
Co. Ltd., 2011 (3) Scale 654 has observed:
"Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are
derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only
if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and
only then may the same be set aside," wrote the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mrs Rubi
(Chandra) Dutta v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2011 (3) Scale 654. There was no
jurisdictional mistake or miscarriage of justice, in our opinion, that would have justified
the National Commission taking a different position from the two Forums. The National
Commission's conclusion is not based on any specific legal theory in this case, revisionary
powers should be used. In light of this, we believe that the National Commission's
authority granted under Section 21(b) of the Act has been abused. It was not a
circumstance where such a conclusion could be reached by ignoring the conclusions of
two fora."
11. As a result, we conclude that the challenged order contains no jurisdictional or
legal mistake that requires our intervention under Section 21(b) of the Act. The State
Commission's order does not require any intervention or contai flaws,
erroneous exercise of jurisdiction, or serious irregularity. As a result, the current revision
petition is dismissed, and we uphold the order of the State Commission and dismiss the
complaint .
Comentários