BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ADDITIONAL BENCH, MANGALORE                        

Dated this the 24^thJune 2017

PRESENT

  SRI VISHWESHWARA BHAT D     : HON’BLE PRESIDENT

SRI T.C. RAJASHEKAR                  : HON’BLE MEMBER

ORDERS IN

C.C.No.334/2014

(Admitted on 3.9.2014)          

Mr. Mohammed Nazeer,

S/o T. Abdulla,

Aged about 46 years,

Residing at Paryiya House,

Jodumarga Post, Jodumarga,

Bantwal Taluk 574219, D.K.

                                                                   ……… Complainant

(Advocate for Complainant by Sri. SKU)

                                                                                                          VERSUS

1. Reliance General Insurance co.Ltd,

28, 5^th floor, East Wing,

Centenary Building,

M.G. Road, Bangalore-560001.

Represented by its Authorised Signatory.

2. Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd,

Balmatta, Mangalore

Represented by its Authorised Signatory.

                                                                              …. Opposite Parties

          (Advocate for Opposite Party No.1 bySri  AKK)

          (Opposite Party No.2: Ex parte)

ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT

SRI VISHWESHWARA BHAT D

 This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service against the opposite party claiming certain reliefs.

The brief facts of the case are as under:

          The complainant’svehicle was insured with Opposite Party no.1 for the period 5.8.2013 to 4.8.2014 and met with an accident on16.11.2013 at about 4:00 a.mresulting in extensive damage the estimated cost of repair was more than the value of the vehicle itself.  As such it is a constructive total loss. The accident was intimated to Opposite Party the vehicle was kept in the workshop of Bharath Auto works pvt. Ltd, Kankanday, Bypass Road, Mangalore.  The officials of the opposite parties promised to give good service and made number of  assurancesand contrary to  for reasons mentioned which are totally untenable repudiated the complainants claim.  Hence seeks reliefs claim in the complainant as despite legal notice opposite parties failed to comply with demur.

2.     opposite parties in the version admit the policy issued to complainants vehicle but the allegations of total loss in the accident and mentions and the vehicle kept M/s Bharath Auto works Pvt ltd, and was inspected and repairer estimated the cost of repair beyond  the cost of the vehicle is founds.  The examined in demand of complainant towards repairs that too almost the double than the price of value itself suggests that the complainant is forcing his wish to get the claim on the basis of total loss instead of getting it repaired even though it is possible.  The complainant’s vehicle was issued with temporary certificate of registration on 5.8.2013 vide registration no. KA.19 TY.4772 valid till 04.09.2013 and same was  neither renewed norpermanent certificate of registration is obtained by the complainant after 4.9.2013 and at the time of alleged accident, the vehicle was not validly registered.  Hence Opposite parties have no liability towards the alleged loss and repudiated the claim of the complainant.  Hence stating no consumer dispute and deficiency in service hence seeks dismissal.

3.In support of the above complaint the complainantMr.Mohammed Nazeer,filed affidavit evidence as (CW1)and answered the interrogatories served on him and produced documents got marked at Ex.C1 to C5 as detailed in the annexure here below.  On behalf of the opposite parties Mr.Santhosh B L,(RW1) Assistant Manager Legal, in Reliance General Insurance co. ltd,also filed affidavit evidence and answered the interrogatories served on him and produced documents got marked at Ex.R1 to R2 as detailed in the annexure here below.

4.In view of the above said facts, the points for consideration in the case are:

1. Whether the Complainant is a consumer and the dispute between the parties?
2. If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for any of the reliefs claimed?
3. What order?

           We have considered entire case filed on record including evidence tendered by the parties and notes of argument of the parties.  Our findings on the points are as under are as follows:

                   Point No. (i): Affirmative

                   Point No. (ii): Negative

                  Point No.(iii): As per the final order.

REASONS

5.   POINTS No. (i):The fact that the vehicle of complainant insured with Opposite Party and policy as per Ex.C1 issued is undisputed and the policy was covering the risk from 5.8.2013 to 4.8.2014 is also undisputed.  Hence there is relationship of consumer and service provider between the parties.       

6.    The claim of complainant towards the loss sustained damages caused the vehicle in the accident is repudiated by Opposite Party. As such hence live dispute between the parties as contemplated under section 2 (1) (e) of C.P. Act. Hence we answer point no. 1 in the affirmative.

7.POINTS NO.(ii): The contention of Opposite Party is that under section 39 of M.V.Act, a vehicle without proper registration number and without display of proper registration number is not expected to the using on public road.  It was contended that the vehicle in question when the accidentoccurred the admittedly was being used on public road without a permanent registration number and the temporary registration number issued to complainants vehicle admittedly expired much before 25.11.2013  the date of road accident. It was argued,Opposite Party under the circumstances the reputation of the complainants claim is justified.       

8.     It is not in dispute that the accident in question took place the vehicle of complainant had not obtained permanent registration certificate in respect of the vehicle.  It is also not in dispute that when the accident took place on 16.11.2013 it was even 30 days i.e. period of temporary registration from date of purchase i.e. 5.8.2013.  The learned counsels for complainant argued that there is no mention in the policy that if permanent registration certificate is not obtained the policy is coveredas the period of validity of the policy was from 5.8.2013 to 4.8.2014 covering the risk of period of accident. 

9.    The learned counsel for Opposite Party referred to a reported judgment of the Apex Court in Narinder Singh V/s New India Assurance Company Limited and others 2014 (2) MACR 1305 (SC) were in thus it is held

Motor Vehicles Act, 1998 section 39,43 and 192 using vehicle on public road without registration Temporary registration of vehicle Expire of Owner neither applying for extension of temporary registration nor for permanent registration as contemplated under section 39 Held, using a vehicle on public road without any registration is not only an offence punishable under section 192 but also a fundamental breach of terms and conditions of policy contract.

10.   As seen from Ex.C1 the limitation mentioned in the document read thus

The policy covers use for any purpose other than: a. Hire or Reward, b. Carriage of goods (other than samples or personal luggage), c. Organised racing, d. Pacemaking, e. Speed Testing, f. Reliability trails, g. Any purpose in connection with Motor Trade

The column of special condition at Ex.C1 reads

It is hereby declared any agreed that all pre-existing damages to the vehicle having occurred prior to the commencement of cover are excluded from the scope of the policy

Thus as can be seen from the above relevant portions at Ex.C1 and of law laid down by Apex Court in Narinder Singh’s case reported above we are of the view it vehicle is use contrary to terms of the Motor Vehicle Act the Opposite Party is justified in repudiating the claim.  When vehicle in the question was driven on the road without registration in our view the repudiation of the claim made by Opposite Party in the circumstance is justified.  Hence point no.2 answered in the negative.

11.POINTS NO.(iii):  Wherefore the following order

ORDER

                                The complaint is dismissed.

       Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of cost and file shall be consigned to record room.

     (Page No.1 to 7dictated by President to the Stenographer typed by him, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the                                24^thJune 2017)

          MEMBER                                               PRESIDENT

(T.C. RAJASHEKAR)                         (VISHWESHWARA BHAT D)

D.K. District Consumer Forum                   D.K. District Consumer Forum

 Additional Bench, Mangalore                     Additional Bench, Mangalore

ANNEXURE

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:

CW1  Mr. Mohammed Nazeer,

Documents marked on behalf of the Complainant:

Ex.C1:Copy of the policy.

Ex.C2: 29.12.20.13: Letter by Opposite Party.

Ex.C3: 13.3.2014: Office copy of the legal notice.

Ex.C4: Postal receipts (2 in nos.)

Ex.C5: Postal acknowledgment.

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:

RW1:Mr.Santhosh B L, Assistant Manager Legal, in Reliance

General Insurance co. ltd

Documents marked on behalf of the Opposite Parties:

Ex.R1: Copy of temporary certificate of registration of vehicle bearing registration No.KA.19.TY.4772.

Ex.R2: office copy of claim repudiation letter issued by the opposite parties to the complainant through RPAD with postal                                      acknowledgement.

Dated: 24.06.2017                    PRESIDENT