Haryana

Sonipat

CC/155/2015

Gaurav S/o Shri Om Parkash - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. The Manager of Bharti Axa General Insurance - Opp.Party(s)

Pankaj Kumar

11 Dec 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SONEPAT.

 

                                Complaint No.155 of 2015                                             Instituted on:11.05.2015                                             Date of order:14.12.2015

 

Gaurav son of Om Parkash, r/o H.No.22/566, Prabhu Nagar Mandi, Sonepat.

     …….Complainant

                          VERSUS

1.The Manager, Bharti Axa Gen. Insurance Co. Ltd.,  having its Branch office at II Floor, Big Joss Tower, A-8, Neta ji Subhash Place, Pritampura, New Delhi-110034.

2.Umesh Kaushik son of Sunil Dutt Kaushik, r/o H.no.2/398, Arya Nagar, Pathro Wali Gali, Sonepat.

     ……..Respondents.

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

Argued by: Sh. Pankaj Kumar Adv. for complainant.

           Sh. SC Jain, Adv. for respondent no.1.

           Respondent no.2 ex-parte.

BEFORE-    Nagender Singh, President.

           Smt. Prabha Wati, Member.

           D.V. Rathi, Member.

O R D E R

        Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that he got insured his Swift Car no.HR1-X-7278 with the respondent no.1 through respondent no.2 for the period valid w.e.f. 5.12.2014 to 4.12.2015 and unfortunately the said vehicle has met with an accident on 27.1.2015.  The complainant informed the respondents on the same day and the respondent no.2 suggested the complainant to repair his vehicle.  The respondent no.1 sent the surveyor on the spot who inspected the accidental vehicle and found the vehicle totally damaged.   The complainant has spent Rs.59709/- on the repair of his vehicle.   After repair, all the documents were sent to the respondents, but till date, the respondents have not made any payment to the complainant and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

2.       In the present case, only the respondent no.1 has appeared and respondent no.2 was proceeded against ex-parte.

         The respondent no.1 in its reply has submitted that the claim of the complainant was repudiated vide letter dated 28.4.2015 as the vehicle of the complainant was damaged in the accident on 27.1.2015 and the claim was intimated to the call centre of the respondent no.1 on 27.1.2015 and it was noticed during document verification that temporary registration certificate is valid upto 4.1.2015 and the subject car was not registered with the concerned RTO at the time of loss and the registration was applied on 4.2.2015 i.e. after the loss.  The complainant was plying the vehicle on the road without permanent registration number and was plying the vehicle with temporary number in violation of Motor Vehicles Rules.  So, the respondent no.1 is not liable to pay Rs.59709/-  to the complainant in any manner since there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.1 and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.       We have heard both the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also gone through the entire case file very carefully.

 

4.       Ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that the respondent no.1 was under legal obligation to make the payment of Rs.59709/- to the complainant which were spent by him on the repair of his insured vehicle.

 

         On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the respondent no.1 has submitted that the claim of the complainant was repudiated vide letter dated 28.4.2015 as the vehicle of the complainant was damaged in the accident on 27.1.2015 and the claim was intimated to the call centre of the respondent no.1 on 27.1.2015 and it was noticed during document verification that temporary registration certificate is valid upto 4.1.2015 and the subject car was not registered with the concerned RTO at the time of loss and the registration was applied on 4.2.2015 i.e. after the loss.  The complainant was plying the vehicle on the road without permanent registration number and was plying the vehicle with temporary number in violation of Motor Vehicles Rules.  So, the respondent no.1 is not liable to pay Rs.59709/-  to the complainant in any manner since there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.1.

   

        But we find no force in this contention of the ld. Counsel for the respondent no.1.  The perusal of the document Ex.C7 shows that the RC in respect of the vehicle was issued on 4.2.2015 by the Registering Authority, Sonepat.  There are some verification to be conducted by the District Inspector of police department prior to the issuance of RC of the vehicle.  The new vehicle and its Engine and chasis number are verified by the Police officials and after doing so, the report is prepared by the police authorities and the same was sent to the Registering Authority to avoid any future complication. It means that the vehicle was inspected prior to the accident and the complainant has deposited the required documents for the issuance of RC in respect of the vehicle in question with the registering authority Sonepat.  So, if the registering authority has issued the RC of the vehicle in question in delayed manner, the complainant cannot be made to suffer in any manner. Further it is not the case of the respondent no.1 insurance company that the complainant has not submitted any documents with the registering authority prior to the date of accident.

         So, the plea of the respondent no.1 that the complainant was driving his vehicle with temporary number at the time of accident is not tenable in the eyes of law.  The final claim of Rs.58762/- was assessed by the surveyor of the insurance company. In our view, the complainant is entitled to get the said amount from the respondent no.1. Thus, we hereby direct the respondent no.1 to make the payment of Rs.58762/- to the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of passing of this order, failing which, the above said amount shall fetch interest at the rate of 09% per annum from the date of passing of this order till realization.             With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed.

         Certified copies of order be provided to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record-room.

 

(Prabha Devi-Member)    (D.V.Rathi)         (Nagender Singh-President)

DCDRF, Sonepat.      DCDRF, Sonepat.      DCDRF Sonepat.

Announced: 14.12.2015