//
you're reading...
CHEQUE BOUNS CASE

the objection that there was no permanent registration of the vehicle is not valid for denying the claim of insurance on the accident of vehicle. The temporary registration expired and permanent registration could not taken for some reason and in the meantime accident occurred.Registration is only a just formality and any delay in that behalf cannot exonerate the insurer to avoid the insurance contract.

This photograph of a Maruti Gypsy vehicle was ...

This photograph of a Maruti Gypsy vehicle was taken by Tim Rogers on 23 September 2001 in Gozo, Malta. He agrees to licence it under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.8107 of 2009
Date of Decision: 16.07.2009
National Insurance Company Limited
Petitioner
Versus
Angoori Devi and others
Respondents
CORAM:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH
Present: Mr. D.P.Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner
…..
Jasbir Singh, J.(Oral)
CM No.9645 of 2009
Application allowed, documents are taken on record.
CWP No.8107 of 2009
This writ petition has been filed to lay challenge to an award,
passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services) Gurgaon (in
short the Lok Adalat), awarding an amount of Rs.1,32,646/- to respondent
No.1 towards damage caused to his vehicle in a motor accident.
It is apparent from the records that respondent No.1 insured his
vehicle bearing No.HR-99-BS(Temp)-4790 with the petitioner company on
18.4.2008. Vehicle met with accident on 21.5.2008. Despite request when
the petitioner failed to make payment towards damage caused to the vehicle,
respondent No.1 moved an application under Section 22-C of the Legal
Services Authorities Act, 1987, to get his claim. It was his case that he sent
his car for repair to M/s Pasco Automobiles, a dealer of Maruti Vehicle. He
was intimated by the workshop people that the damage caused to the shellCivil Writ Petition No.8107 of 2009
of the vehicle is to the extent of 80% and is beyond repair. He was advised
to get the shell repaired. Respondent No.1 had to bring his vehicle from
workshop, as the workshop was charging an amount of Rs.250/- per day, as
parking charges.
Before Lok Adalat, the petitioner took up a stand that the
damage caused is less. Survey report was submitted, wherein it was said
that damage has been caused to the tune of Rs.55,646.21. The Lok Adalat
negatived the argument raised by the petitioner, by observing as under:-
“We have heard the parties. Pasco is an authorized
workshop and of repute. In its estimate the replacement of
body shell has been recommended costing Rs.77,000/-. It has
sustained bent. Even if it is removed it cannot be rendered fit
for use. It is a common knowledge that the repair of body shell
how accurate it may be it cannot be rendered fit for use. The
surveyor has not mentioned its repair or replacement. He has
not even written that it has not damage. So the amount has to
be added in the estimate furnished by the surveyor. As the
policy was cashless. An option was given to the respondent to
get the vehicle repaired at their own efforts and supervision,
but the counsel for the respondent explained that no such job
can be undertaken by the company. So the only solution of the
matter is that the cost of body shell be added in the amount
recommended by the surveyor.
The objection that there was no permanent registration
of the vehicle is not valid for denying the claim. The
temporary registration expired and permanent registration
could not taken for some reason and in the meantime accident
2Civil Writ Petition No.8107 of 2009
occurred. Registration is just a formality and any delay in that
behalf cannot exonerate the insurer to avoid the insurance
contract. (2007)1 CPC 432. The accident occurred some 9
months back and the vehicle is still lying unrepaired. The
respondent is mainly responsible for it. In case the surveyor
had been appointed without any delay much hardship suffered
by the applicant could be avoided. Even after the order of the
Court no steps in that direction were taken. So the award is
passed to the effect that the respondent shall pay an amount of
Rs.1,32,646/- (55646 + 77000/-) to the applicant within a
month failing which the amount shall be paid with interest @
12% p.a. from today till the date of payment. The applicant
shall get his vehicle repaired without delay and delivered the
selvage to the respondent at their office.”
This Court feels that the finding given above is perfectly
justified. By moving an application, photographs of the damaged vehicle
have been put on record, which clearly shows that the vehicle from the front
side has totally crumbled. It appears to be a total damage, only one portion
and back side is safe. As per advice given by the dealer of Maruti vehicles,
it appears that it was not possible to repair the vehicle in question. That is
why replacement of shell was advised.
In view of facts mentioned above, no case is made out for
interference.
Dismissed.
15.07.2009 (Jasbir Singh)
gk Judge
3

Advertisements

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

No comments yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: