Adv. For the Complainant: - Sri S.P.Mishra
Adv. For O.Ps :- - Self
Date of filing of the Case :- 19.06.2020
Date of Order :- 13.01.2023
JUDGMENT
The brief fact as narrated in the complaint:-
1. The complainant purchased a vehicle namely Tata Tiago NRG AMT from the authorized dealer of Tata namely Laxmi Sales , Bargarh through its branch at Bolangir who is designated as OP no 2 . The complainant issued a quotation in the name of Gobinda Meher instead Gobinda Mishra on Date. 12.06.2019 being satisfied the wrong name is a typographical error the complainant booked the same vehicle with cash payment of Rs.30,000/- as booking advance on 24.06.2019 and paid the rest amount of Rs.6,72,190/- to the OP No.3 with a
-2-
photograph at the time of delivery . The vehicle was insured at Cholamandalam General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vide policy no. 3311/00267535/000/00 on the same date of purchase valid from 16.07.2019 to 15.07.2020 where in the insurance policy the complainant defrauded an amount of Rs 15,403/- due to the false assurance of OP no2.
2. `On August 2019 there was heavy rain on 12.08.2019 and 13.08.2019 out of which there was un precedent flood in Bolangir town in that flood the house of the complainant along with the vehicle were water logged more than 12 hours, the complainant report the status of the submerged vehicle to Tata motors and advised by them not to start the engine and assured to tow the vehicle but failed to do so . on dated 23.08.2019 the complainant contracted Sonu Moters who is the authorized service center who tow the vehicle on 24.08.2019 the service center gave an estimate of repair cost of the damaged vehicle to the tune of Rs 1,80,000/- on the same day the complainant filed claim petition and after that the OP1 appoint S.K Mishra as surveyor for assessing the loss but the repair cost given by the service center was beyond his limit so he advised the company to appoint another surveyor from the head office at Bhubaneswar . The surveyor appointed by the head office advice the service center to made an estimate in the event of water logging of vehicle up to dash board level and accordingly the service center sent a fresh estimate of Rs 5,32,961/- to the insures. On dated 16.12.2019 OP No 1 issued a letter to the complainant that the accident was occurred on 13.08.2019 where as the date of registration is on 14.08.2019 and why the claim will not be repudiated . on dated 11.03.2020 the complainant received a letter date 07.03.2020 from the office of the insurer intimating the complainant mention there in that his claim has been repudiated as the vehicle was not registered on the date of accident. Hence this case.
3. To substantiate his case the complainant relied on the following document.
(1) The Xerox copy of quotation cum performance invoice.
(2) Xerox copy of order booking form .
(3) Tax invoice Tata Motors .
(4) Vehicle delivery acknowledgement note with photograph.
(5) Insurance policy paper
(6) Certificate of Registration other related papers including the repudiated letter.
4. Having gone through the Complainant it’s accompanied documents and on hearing the complainant prime facie it seemed to be a genuine case, hence admitted and notice to the OPs were served and in response they appeared and file their version.
-3-
5. The OP No.1 and OP No.2 set ex-parte on dated 23.09.2022 after a sufficient opportunity has been given to them for filing of written version Op . no 3 is deleted on the request of the complainant as Mis-joinder . Op no. 4 in its contention admitted that the vehicle was purchased on dated 22.07.2019 accordingly entry inspection and verification was made on dt.08.08.2019 and registration has been approved on date 14.08.2019 assigning registration no. OD03P9700 and HSRP completed on dated 30.09.2019 and shifted the liability on the shoulder of the Dealer citing the Rule 42 of EMVR-1989 Act which states “No person shall drive any motor vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this chapter and the certificate of registration of vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner”. As such, the Dealer violate the instruction of chapter IV of MV act 1988 by handing over the vehicle without registration.
6. On perusal of the complainant and the evidentiary documents on the record this commission found that the vehicle was purchased on Date. 16.07.2019 but in the written version of Op no 4 it is mention as 22.07.2019 is wrong conception and accordingly the registration of the vehicle was with in the statutory period i.e. one month ( 30 days) from the date of purchase of the vehicle . This period covers the temporary registration which covered by sec 43 of the MV Act. Sec 43 (2) of the MV Act explained for reasons to explain that period can be extended by the authority. Here in the present case in hand no plea was taken by the complainant that period for registration was get extended by him, Therefore, he was required to get permanent registration number with in a period of 30 days as per Sec.43, otherwise it will be violation of Sec.39 punishable under section . It is settle principle of law that lack of registration cannot always be attributed to the insured as there could be circumstances beyond the control of the insured leading to such lack of registration for example the insured might have paid the charges towards registration fee either at the RTO or even at the dealer point but the registration certificate could be pending in process at the time of loss of damage to the vehicle leading too claim with insurer. When the temporary registration expired the owner of the vehicle either applied for permanent registration as contemplated under Sec.39 of the M.V. Act or made application for extension of period as temporary registration on the ground of some special reason. In ( Narinder Singh V. 6 respondent New India Assurance Company) the S.C frame the guideline as mentioned “ In cases where the material on record available show that the insured had deposited the requisite registration fees and Road Tax on the vehicle either with the RTO or with the dealer/sub-dealer before the vehicle meets with an accident while the registration is still in process/ pending after such deposit of registration fees and Road Tax claims arising out of such an accident may be settled on subject to submission of RC book by the insured.
-4-
The present case in hand it is pertinent to mention here that the vehicle was purchased on date 16.072019 and accordingly the vehicle was insured with Op No.1 on the same day as such the insurance policy was valid from 16.07.2019 to 15.07.2020 and the loss or damage occur to the vehicle on Date 13.08.2019 two days before the statutory period i.e. date 15.07.2019 and the Certificate of the Registration shows the date of Registration is 14.08.2019 which is within the statutory period. The amount of Road Tax and Registration Fees deposited by the complainant on the same day of purchase but the amount of registration was deposited by the dealer with the RTO on date 22.07.2019 . Moreover, the complainant after received of the registration paper produced it before the OP No. 1 for settlement of his claim.
More over the insurer Op no 1 appoint two surveyor for assessment of the loss, after receiving of the report of the surveyor which is prepared by the servicing center with the advised, consent and approval of the Tata motors engineer and agree with the loss estimate of Rs 5,32,961/- there is no stone unturned why the OP repudiate the insurance policy which is baseless , factitious and surmises bad in the eye of law.
Taking to the above fact and circumstances, this commission feels and observe that the petitioner is not at fault in any way and the repudiation of the claim is restrictive trade practice as well as unfair trade practice which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.1 . Hence Order.
ORDER
This commission pleased to direct the Op no . 1 to pay a sum of Rs 7,02,190/- @ 9% P.A. from the date of incident, Rs 50,000/- for mental agony Rs 10,000/- towards litigation expenses within one month from the date of order failing which the Op no. 1 directed to pay the entire amount @ 12 % P.A. from the date of filing of the case till realization .
There is no awards as to cost.
Accordingly the case is disposed off.
PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION TODAY I.E DATE 13th day of January’2023.
(J.MISHRA) (R.K.TRIPATHY)
MEMBER. PRESIDENT(I/C)
