Nevertheless, the observations in Rajesh Nautiyal (supra) didn’t stand the check of time because the NCDRC took a very contradictory view in Nationwide Insurance coverage Co Ltd v. Ram Diya, whereby the unregistered automobile was pushed from the residence of the complainant to a hospital. While being parked outdoors the hospital, the automobile was stolen.

Though the insurance coverage firm pleaded the applicability of the ratio in Narinder Singh, the NCDRC distinguished the case at hand from the information of Narinder Singh on the premise that although the insured automobile was pushed in a fashion punishable below Part 192 of the Act, as soon as it was parked within the hospital’s car parking zone, the mentioned offence got here to an finish. Thus, on the time of theft, since no statutory provisions had been being violated, the repudiation of the insurance coverage declare was completely unjustified.

This view even discovered affirmation from the Supreme Court docket with the dismissal of the particular go away petition [Special Leave Petition No. 23878 of 2015] filed by the insurance coverage firm in opposition to the mentioned judgment.

Thereafter, in Revision Petition Nos 522 of 2018 and 449 of 2018, the NCDRC reiterated the rationale laid down in Ram Diya (supra).

Nevertheless, owing to a number of conflicting judgments, there was nonetheless obscurity across the situation.

Adblock check (Why?)