NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI

(From the Order dated 02.03.2005 in Appeal No. 255 of 2005 of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh)

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN, PRESIDENT

PRONOUNCED ON         : 23.02.2009

Petitioner herein who was the complainant before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar (hereinafter referred to as ‘the District Forum’ for short) has filed the present Revision Petition.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are: -

Respondent/complainant had filed the complaint before the District Forum alleging that he was the owner of Maruti Car bearing Registration No. PB-02-AC-3363, which was insured with the petitioner. The validity of the policy was from 21.11.2001 to 20.11.2002. The vehicle met with an accident on 29.09.2002. Respondent incurred an expenditure of Rs.1,17,391.63 on repair of the vehicle and a sum of Rs.1,500/- as towing charges. Thus, in total, the respondent spent a sum of Rs.1,18,891/-. He submitted his claim to the petitioner-Insurance Company which was repudiated aggrieved against which the respondent filed the complaint before the District Forum.

On being noticed, petitioner filed its reply. It admitted the factum of insurance of car and occurrence of accident. Petitioner took the stand that the claim of the respondent could not be entertained as the car was fitted with CNG Gas Kit, which was not permissible under the rules of the Insurance Company.

The District Forum accepted the complaint. It came to the conclusion that no rule/regulation of the Insurance Company was brought on record to show that the petitioner was justified in repudiating the claim of the respondent on the ground that the vehicle was fitted with the CNG Gas Kit. The District Forum directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1,18,891/- within a period of 3 months and, on failure to do so, awarded amount was to carry interest @9% p.a. from 29.09.2002 till the date of payment. Rs. 1,000/- was awarded as costs.

Aggrieved against the Order passed by the District Forum, petitioner filed the Appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’ for short). State Commission dismissed the Appeal for the same reasons as had been recorded by the District Forum while allowing the complaint filed by the respondent. It held that the petitioner had failed to put on record the terms and conditions of policy showing that the vehicle fitted with CNG Gas Kit could not be insured without the permission of the competent authority.

Petitioner has not put on record the letter by which the claim of the respondent was repudiated. The only submission which was advanced before the District Forum and before the State Commission was that a car fitted with CNG Gas Kit could not be insured, as the same was not permissible under the rules of the Insurance Company. The petitioner has failed to substantiate this plea by putting on record the terms and conditions of policy or any provision of the Act or rule to show that the car fitted with CNG Gas Kit could not be insured. We agree with the finding recorded by the Foras below.

Counsel for the petitioner relying upon Section 52 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which provides that “no owner of the motor vehicle shall so alter the vehicle that the particulars contained in the certificate of registration are at variance with those originally specified by the manufacturer”, contends that the vehicle in dispute could not be insured as the same was fitted with CNG Gas Kit. This question would arise only if the petitioner was able to prove that the vehicle was originally fitted with a petrol/diesel engine but later on the respondent had altered it to CNG Gas Kit. No such plea was taken by the petitioner in its written statement or before the District Forum or the State Commission. In the absence of a plea that the respondent had changed the vehicle from petrol/diesel engine to CNG Gas Kit, the argument raised before us has to be rejected.

Reliance upon the subsequent Circular No. SRT-11011/15/99-MVL dated 12.07.2002 issued by Government of India, Ministry of Road Transport and Highway, is of no consequence as this Circular was issued subsequent to the issuance of the policy and shall, therefore, be not applicable to the policy in question. This apart, this Circular, in no way, helps the petitioner.

The Counsel then submitted that the basic premium of ordinary Maruti Car at the relevant time was Rs.6871.25. If the vehicle was fitted with CNG engine, then, the respondent was required to pay an additional amount, which he had not paid. We find no substance in this submission as well. Such a plea was not taken in the written statement or before any of the Foras below. The petitioner cannot be permitted to take the aforesaid plea at this stage.

For the reasons stated above, we do not find any substance in this Revision Petition and dismiss the same with cost, which are assessed at Rs.5,000/-.

        . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

                                                                (ASHOK BHAN J.)

                                                                . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .