UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. versus SUSHIL KUMAR GODARA

Citation: [2021] 9 S.C.R. 251 · Decided: 30-09-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
251
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.
v.
SUSHIL KUMAR GODARA
(Civil Appeal No. 5887 of 2021)
SEPTEMBER 30, 2021
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND
BELA M. TRIVEDI, JJ.]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: ss.39 and 192 – Insurance claim –
Repudiation of – Respondent-complainant obtained an insurance
policy for his Bolero car, in Punjab, though he was a resident of
Rajasthan – The vehicle had a temporary registration (from
20-06-2011 to 19-07-2011) – On 28-07-2011, he travelled outside
his residence, to Jodhpur, in his car, and stayed overnight in a guest
house and parked the car outside the guest house premises in
Jodhpur – Next morning, he discovered that the car was stolen –
Claim for loss – Held: When an insurable incident occurs that
potentially results in liability, there should be no fundamental breach
of the conditions contained in the contract of insurance – The
temporary registration of the respondent’s vehicle had expired on
19-07-2011 – However, not only was the vehicle driven, but also
taken to another city, where it was stationed overnight in a place
other than the respondent’s premises – There is nothing on record
to suggest that the respondent had applied for registration or that
he was awaiting registration – 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 the place from where it was stolen,
after the expiry of temporary registration – But for its theft, the
respondent would have driven back the vehicle – On the date of
theft, the vehicle was driven/used without a valid registration, which
amounted to a clear violation of ss.39 and 192 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 – There was fundamental breach of the terms and
conditions of the policy, as held in *Narinder Singh  entitling the
insurer to repudiate the policy – Consumer Protection – Insurance
claim.
*Narinder Singh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2014)
9 SCC 324 : [2014] 9 SCR 551 – relied on.
[2021] 9 S.C.R. 251
251
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
252
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 9 S.C.R.
Naveen Kumar v. National Insurance Company Ltd.
[RP/250/2019] decided on 26.11.2019 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2014] 9 SCR 551
relied on
Para 4
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.5887 of
2021.
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.12.2020 of the National
Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission in RP No.1984 of 2015.
Amit Kumar Singh, Mrs. K. Enatoli Sema, Ms. Chubalemla Chang,
Advs. for the Appellant.
Ms. Gauri Puri, Adv. for the Respondent.
The Order of the Court was passed by
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.
1. Counsel for parties were heard, with their consent, for final
disposal of the appeal. The appellant (hereby “insurer”) questions the
judgment and order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, New Delhi1 (“hereafter the NCDRC”). In the impugned
order, the NCDRC dismissed the appellant’s revision petition, that
challenged the order2 of the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench at Bikaner (hereafter “the State
Commission”).
2. The respondent-complainant obtained an insurance policy3 from
the insurer for his Bolero car, somewhere in Punjab, though he was a
resident of Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan. The vehicle had a temporary
registration (No. PB-11-T-5101 from 20-06-2011 to 19-07-2011). The
sum insured was   6,17,800/-. The temporary registration of the vehicle,
however, expired on 19-07-2011.
3. As the respondent/complainant was engaged in business as a
private contractor, for business purposes he had to be outside the city.
1 Dated 11/12/2020 in Revision Petition No. 1984/ 2015
2 dated 20/03/2015, in FA No. 244/2013
3 bearing policy no. 200104/31/11/0100000947
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
253
On 28-07-2011 the complainant went to Jodhpur for business purposes;
and stayed in Geeta Guest House at night. Whilst there, his vehicle was
parked outside the guest house premises. When the respondent awoke
in the morning, he found that the Bolero car had been stolen. He lodged
a first information report (FIR) on 29-07-2011 with PS Ratanada, Jodhpur
alleging commission of offences under Section 379, IPC. However, on
30-09-2011 the police lodged a final report stating that the vehicle was
untraceable.
4. The respondent claimed the loss, from the appellant/insurer.
The insurance claim, however was repudiated by order dated
23-01-2013 on three grounds:
(i) Intimation of theft of vehicle was given to the insurer after
delay which was in violation of 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.