SATPAL Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present petition has been filed impugning the order Annexure P-3 passed by the learned Permanent Lok Adalat Public Utility Services, Rewari whereby the Lok Adalat has upheld the rejection of the claim arising out of accident by the Insurance Company-respondent No.1. The insurance claim was rejected on the ground that the policy of the insurance company does not cover the claims arising out of accident wherein vehicle has not been granted requisite permit under the Motor Vehicles Act. It is an admitted case that the vehicle was purchased on 31.05.2012 and the accident took place on 25.06.2012 and on the date of accident, the requisite permit had not been yet issued. However, it is contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner's case throughout has been that on the date of accident, the vehicle had to be utilized in medical emergency to take the sister-in-law of the petitioner to hospital and on the way near village Shyam Nager suddenly a stray animal/Neel Gai (blue bull) came in front of the insured vehicle. In the process to avoid collision, the car went off the road and hit the tree and got damaged. The said contention has also been duly noted by the learned Lok Adalat. However, the same has not been dealt with vide impugned order. As per the surveyor report Annexure P-8 which is an admitted document of the respondent Insurance Company, relied for the purposes of rejecting the claim of the petitioner, it has clearly recorded qua the nature of the accident as below:-

(2.) It is thus a conceded position of insurance company that the registration documents of the vehicle were submitted to the RTO on 12.06.2012. Before the formal registration document could be received from the vehicle had to be used in medical emergency on 25.06.2012. Subsequent to the said medical emergency the registration certificate of the vehicle was received and as per surveyor report, ibid, the same is in order. The said findings of the surveyor have not been disputed at any stage.

(3.) The question now arises that should one rather let a human life be put in a jeopardy for the fear that vehicle ought not to be used for lack of having received registration certificate from RTO despite having submitted all documents. In such a medical emergency, sagacity warranted what the petitioner did and ought to have done. It is not the case of insurance company that the petitioner acted against prudence. But yet the claim has been rejected on technical grounds and even the said technical grounds also do not stand the scrutiny of law as would be borne out hereinafter. It is the contention of the learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner's case is covered by Sec. 66 (3) (c) of the Motor Vehicles Act which is extracted below:-