ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.THROUGH ITS SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, MYTHE ESTATE, KAITHU, SHIMLA Vs. RAMESH CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is against the order of the learned District Forum, Chamba, dated 25.4.2003, whereby the respondent has been allowed compensation of Rs. 1,25,000/ - alongwith interest 12% per annum from the date of accident i.e. 11.7.2000 and costs of Rs.1,000/ - to be paid by the appellant -Insurance Company.

(2.) The only question which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether alleged absence of certificate of fitness of the vehicle involved in the accident giving rise to the claim for indemnification by the respondent so as to defear the claim of the respondent. The learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that Section 56 of the Motor Vehicles Act read with terms and conditions of the Insurance policy make it obligatory for a commercial vehicle to be declared fit for plying and to have a certificate of fitness in this behalf, otherwise the claim for indemnification in case of its accident would be invalid. The perusal of Section 56 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 indicates that what has been made necessary is that a transport vehicle shall not be deemed to be validly registered unless it carries a certificates of fitness. In other words, absence of a certificate of fitness would be a disqualification for its registration, and by no stretch of imagination can it be deemed to be such a flaw so as to render the claim for indemnification against the Insurance Company invalid. Moreover, we are fortified in our view because of the precedent of an earlier decision rendered by this Commission in the case of Chet Ram Chauhan V. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and anr. II (1997) CPJ 526, where it has been held that the repudiation of claim on the ground that certificate of fitness was not obtained, cannot be considered the fundamental breach of the Insurance Policy so as to disclaim the liability of the Insurance Policy.

(3.) As regard the violation of terms and conditions of the policy, the copy of the same is Annexure R -7 on the record. Our attention has been drawn by the learned counsel for the appellant to the clause as regards the Limits of Liability but there is no such specific term in that clause which would support the defence of the appellant that in the absence of a certificate of fitness, the claim for indemnification can be repudiated. In view of the above discussion, we find no error in the impugned order insofar as the awarding of the principal amount is concerned, which itself is based on the assessment of the Surveyor cum Loss Assessor appointed by the appellant -Insurance Company in the present case, so also the awarding of Rs. 1,000/ - as costs. We, however, modify the same to the extent that the interest of 12% per annum shall be with effect from the date of complaint i.e. 16.3.2001 instead of the date of the accident. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.