Date of Filing : 12.12.2012
Date of Order : 29.06.2013
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR
Dated 29th JUNE 2013
PRESENT
Sri. J.N. HAVANUR, B.Sc., LLB (SPL) ……. PRESIDENT
Sri. H.M. SHIVALINGAPPA, B.Sc., LLB …….. MEMBER
CC No. 121 / 2012
Sri. K.V. Amarnath,
S/o. Sri. K.V. Vijay Kumar,
Aged about 42 years,
B-222, Bharath Nagar, BEML Nagar,
KGF.
(By Sri. N. Sreenath & S. Raghu, Adv.) ……. Complainant
V/s.
1. The Claims Manager,
ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
HO: ICICI Bank Towers, Bandra Kurla Complex,
Mumbai – 400 051.
2. The Claims Manager,
ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Policy Issuing Office: Zenith House,
Keshavarao Khade Marg, Mahalaxmi Mumbai,
Mumbai – 400 034.
(By Sri. B. Kumar & Radha Kumar, Adv.) …… Opposite Parties
ORDER
By Sri. J.N. HAVANUR, PRESIDENT
This is a complaint filed by the complainant against the OPs, under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, praying to pass an order, directing the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.8,46,524.00 and to pay Rs.2,00,000.00 towards damages and interest at the rate of 24% per annum and to grant such other relief, in the interest of justice and equity.
The brief facts of the complaint can be stated as under.
The complainant purchased LMV TATA Safari Black colour vehicle from TATA Concorde Motors, Bangalore vide invoice no.CRN:CR01-11-111611579381, Tax Invoice No. CedBlrL 1011-04288 and Sale Certificate No.CedBlr:1011-04288–SC dated 19.02.2011. The said vehicle was duly registered with ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., vide Policy No.3001/TM304754/00/001, and the policy was issued on 19.02.2011 valid upto 18.02.2012 midnight. The vehicle was temporarily registered vide KA 01-TR-MB-6388, and the insurance was made for a total amount of Rs.8,46,524.00. The above said vehicle was unfortunately met with an accident on 08.02.2012 and the same was intimated to the OP office and they have registered the claim bearing No. 20901311107200013907 dated 08.02.2012. As per the procedure the vehicle was inspected on two occasions by their appointed personnel and represented that the claim will be investigated and they will pay the insurance amount. In spite of waiting for certain period the complainant has not received the said amount or reply from their end. The vehicle was sent to TATA showroom at Kolar and they have given estimate for repair approximately in a sum of Rs.7,50,000.00 dated 17.02.2012 which is also forwarded to the OPs. The OPs ought to have honoured the claim and sent for approval for repair or for payment of the insurance amount to complainant. The OP Company who has insured the vehicle being a responsible insurance company ought to have honoured the claim within a reasonable time, but it is more than 9 months, there is no response from their end. Hence the complainant issued legal notice dated 28.06.2012, but they have failed to comply with the same. The OPs are avoiding payment of the amount which they are liable to pay as insurer on one ground or the other. The complainant is entitled to seek payment of the insurance amount alongwith interest and damages. On account of personal problems the complainant was not able to get the vehicle registered after the expiry of temporary registration, but however that cannot come in the way of OPs in honouring their insurance claim. The OPs have been withholding the amount without any valid or justifiable cause or reason. The complainant being a consumer of the OP insurance company are liable to pay the insurance amount for a total sum of Rs.8,46,524.00 and as they are holding the said amount of the complainant, so the complainant is entitled to interest at the rate of 24% per annum, and there is unlawful and illegal harassment to the complainant on account of the attitude of the OPs and he has been put to mental and physical torture, so he is entitled to damages in a sum of Rs.2,00,000.00 and also cost of this complaint. Hence, the present complaint is filed.
2. After service of notice, the OPs have appeared through their counsel and filed their objection contending interalia as under:
The allegations of complaint are false, and the complaint of complainant is not maintainable either in law or on facts. These OPs do not admit and deny all the allegations made in the complaint. The OPs admit that, the interest of the TATA Safari new vehicle bearing temporary registration no.KA-01-TR-MB-6388, Engine no.NZYJ23139, Chassis no.ANN13147 owned by the OP no.1 and it was covered at the material time under the policy of insurance issued by this OP bearing policy no.3001/TM304754/00/001 subject to terms and conditions exceptions and limitations. The said vehicle has been driven by an un-licenced driver and as such the insured has breached the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance, so the OP are not liable to pay any claim as alleged by the complainant. The said vehicle has been plied without any valid registration and under section 43 of the Motor Vehicles Act; a vehicle can be registered temporarily, but such registration is valid only for a period of one month, the vehicle was temporarily registered at the time, when the policy was purchased and on expiry of one month period, the temporary registration was bound to have come to an end and that it is not in dispute that the vehicle had not been got registered thereafter. Further section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act says that no person shall drive any Motor vehicle in any public place or any other place, unless the same is registered in accordance with chapter IV of the Motor Vehicles Act. Further section 192 of the Motor Vehicle Act makes the use of the vehicle, without registration an offence punishable with imprisonment upto one year or with fine of Rs.10,000=00 or with both. That means use of vehicle without registration is not only illegal but an offence punishable under the Motor Vehicle Act. The temporary registration expires and the vehicle has not been permanently registered, but in the meanwhile, accident takes place and insurance company is not liable to indemnify. As such based on the law laid by the various State Commissions and the National Commission in this aspect, it is clear that, the liability of the OPs does not arise for kind consideration. So the complaint is not maintainable. The quantum of compensation claimed is highly excessive, exorbitant, fanciful and imaginary without any legal or equitable basis. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint in the ends of justice and equity.
3. So, from the averments of the complaint of the Complainant and version of the Ops, the following points arise for our consideration:
1. Whether the Complainant proves that Ops are negligent and there is deficiency of service on the part of the Ops in not making settlement of the insurance claim as prayed in the complaint.
2. If Point No. 1 is answered in the affirmative, what relief the Complainant is entitled to?
3. What Order ?
4. Our findings on the above points are as under:
1. Negative
2. In view of the negative finding, Complainant is not entitled to any relief.
3. As per final order
REASONS
5. Point No. 1 - So as to prove the case, Complainant has filed his affidavit by way of evidence and produced 8 copies of documents with list dtd. 12.02.2012. On the other hand, one Chidananda.P., Legal Manager, working in OP has filed his affidavit by way evidence on behalf of Ops and produced no documents. K.V. Amarnath who being a Complainant has deposed in his affidavit that he purchased LMV Tata Safari, Black colour vehicle from Tata Concorde Motors, Bangalore, vide Invoice No. CRN:CR01-11-111611579381, Tax Invoice No. CedBlr:1011-04288 and Sale Certificate No. CedBlr:1011-04288-SC dtd. 19.02.2012. The said vehicle was duly registered with ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited vide Policy No. 3001/TM304754/00/001 and the said Policy issued on 19.02.2011 valid upto 18.02.2012 mid night. The vehicle was temporarily registered vide KA-01-TR-MB-6388. The insurance was made for total amount of Rs.8,46,524/- and the said vehicle was unfortunately met with an accident on 08.02.2012 while on the way to registration and the same was intimated to the Ops’ office and they have registered the claim bearing No. 20901311107200013907 dtd. 08.02.2012. As per the procedure, the vehicle was inspected on two occasions by their appointed personnel and represented that their claim will be investigated and they will pay the insurance amount. In spite of waiting for certain period, he has not received the said amount or reply from their end. The vehicle was sent to Tata Show Room at Kolar and they gave an estimate for repairs for a sum of Rs.7,50,000/- approximately dtd. 17.02.2012 which was also forwarded to the Ops. They ought to have honoured the claim and sent approval for repair or payment of the insurance amount. The OP Company who being responsible ought to have honoured the claim within a reasonable time, but it is more than one year, there was no response from their end. So, he got issued legal notice dtd. 28.06.2012 calling upon the Insurance Company to honour the claim and order for payment of insurance amount or send the amount to Tata Concorde, Kolar, for repair of the vehicle. But, they have failed to comply with the same. Ops are avoiding payment of amount which they are liable to pay as insurer on one ground or the other. He is entitled to seek payment of insurance amount along with interest and damages. On account of personal problems, he was not able to get the vehicle permanently registered after expiry of Temporary Registration. But, however, that cannot come in the way of Ops in honouring their insurance claim. Ops have withheld the amount without any valid or justifiable causes or reasons. Ops are liable to pay insurance amount of Rs.8,46,524/- along with interest @ 24% P.A. and damages of Rs.2,00,000/- as he has been put to mental & physical torture and also to pay cost of litigation. So, the present Complaint is filed and he prays to allow the complaint and grant relief as prayed for.
6. On a careful reading of the Complaint and evidence of the Complainant as mentioned above, it is made manifest that the Complainant has tendered his evidence in conformity with the averments of the Complaint. Let us have a look at the documents of the Complainant so as to know whether the oral evidence of the Complainant stands corroborated by the documentary evidence or not. Document No. 1 of the Complainant’s list is the copy of Temporary Certificate of Registration issued by the RTO, Bangalore in the name of the Complainant in respect of his LMV Tata Safari vehicle for a period from 19.02.2011 to 20.03.2011. Document No. 2 is the Tax Invoice copy of the vehicle dtd. 17.02.2011 in the name of the Complainant issued by the Concord Motors Ltd. in respect of Tata Safari vehicle for Rs.8,86,078/- and it bears signature of the Complainant also. The 3rd document is the Sale Certificate issued by the Tata Motors dtd. 19.02.2011 in the name of the Complainant in respect of Tata Safari vehicle. The 5th document is the copy of Insurance Policy issued by ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited in respect of Tata Safari vehicle in the name of the Complainant for a period from 19.02.2011 to 18.02.2012 by receiving premium amount of Rs.28,591/- for a sum of Rs.8,46,524/-. The last document of the Complainant is copy of the legal notice of the Complainant dtd. 28.06.2012 issued to Ops praying to look into the claim of the Complainant and order for payment of insurance amount and send the amount to Tata Concorde Motors, Kolar, for repair of the said vehicle as the Tata Show Room, Kolar has given estimate of the repairs.
7. So, from the documents of the Complainant, it is transpired that after purchase of the vehicle, the Complainant got temporary Registration Certificate of the vehicle from RTO, Bangalore upto 20.03.2011 and after expiry of Temporary Registration, the Complainant did not submit any application either for extension of temporary Registration or for permanent Registration Certificate from the RTO, Bangalore. As per the averments of the Complaint and evidence of the Complainant, it is disclosed that on 08.02.2012 the vehicle of the Complainant met with an accident and the Complainant submitted his claim of insurance to OP, but Ops have not settled the claim of the Complainant. At this stage, it is relevant to have cursory glance at the evidence of the Ops. One Chidananda.P., Legal Manager, working in OP has sworn to in his evidence that Tata Safari vehicle bearing Temporary Registration No. KA-01-TR-MB-6388 was covered under Policy of insurance issued by the OPs for a period from 19.02.2011 to 18.02.2012 subject to the terms & conditions, exceptions and limitations thereof. The said vehicle has been driven by unlicenced driver and as such insured has breached terms & conditions of the Policy. So, Op is not liable to pay any claim. The said vehicle has been plied without valid registration. After expiry of Temporary Registration of the vehicle, the vehicle has not been got registered. As per Sec. 39 of Motor Vehicles Act, no person shall drive any Motor Vehicle in any public place or any other place unless it is registered in accordance with Chapter IV of Motor Vehicles Act. Further, Sec. 192 of Motor Vehicles Act makes the use of the vehicle without registration an offence punishable with imprisonment upto one year or with a fine of Rs.10,000/- or with both. That means, the use of the vehicle without registration is not only illegal, but also an offence punishable under Motors Vehicles Act. Since there is flagrant violation of terms & conditions of the Policy of the insurance, OP is not liable to pay any amount to the Complainant including damages. There is no deficiency of service on the part of OP. So, the Complaint be dismissed with costs.
8. A careful reading of the version and evidence of the employee of the OP, it is specific defence of the OPs that since temporary registration taken by the Complainant has been expired and no further registration certificate was taken by the Complainant and as on the date of accident the vehicle in question was not registered with RTO and Complainant ought not to have plied the vehicle on public place without valid registration certificate, there is a violation of the terms & conditions of the Policy. So, OP is not liable to pay any amount to the Complainant. At this stage, the Learned Counsel for the Complainant has relied on the following.
(1) Legal Approach IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Pratima Jha dtd. 27.04.2012. The relevant portion of Para-5 of the said judgement is culled out as under:
“From the record, it appears that the vehicle was got registered in the Office of the RTO, Raipur, vide document Annexure-A4. This document shows that under the provisions of Section 25 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, the vehicle in question was got registered under a temporary registration and registration No. C.G.04 5651/TR was allotted to the vehicle. In the certificate, it has also been mentioned that the Certificate would be valid from 08.09.2008 to 17.10.2008 and necessary charges Rs.130/- was paid for the purpose of getting this temporary registration No. on 08.10.2008 and then again on 13.11.2008. These dates have been mentioned against the word “deposit”. Probably this endorsement shows that some amount was deposited for getting temporary registration continued from 14.10.2008 to 13.11.2008. Though no specific endorsement was made by the Registering Authority in this regard, but from this entry of deposit, it appears that the concerning RTO, permitted the owner of the vehicle to use the temporary registration for a period beyond the period, which was mentioned earlier. Considering these documents, we can safely infer that a particular Registration No. was allotted and registration fees was also deposited from time to time by owner in the Office of Registering Authority. On 13.10.2008, when Rs.100/- was deposited, then again endorsement was made by the Registering Authority with seal and signature of the Authority concerned. Against the entry, there is no mention that after this deposit for how long period, the owner of the vehicle was permitted to use the temporary registration no. It might be even up to date of accident, so on the basis of this particular document, this cannot be said that vehicle was being used without getting the same Registered in the Office of the Registering Authority. Thus there was no violation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 in this regard”……. Consequently, the Revision Petition No. 171 of 2012 is dismissed by the Hon’ble National Commission.
The said portion of the judgement cull-out discloses that some amount was deposited for getting temporary registration continued from 14.10.2008 to 13.11.2008 and though no specific endorsement was made by Registering Authority in this regard. But, from this entry, Hon’ble National Commission has observed that the concerned RTO permitted the owner of vehicle to use temporary registration beyond the period which was mentioned earlier. So, on the basis of this particular document, it cannot be said that the vehicle was being used without getting the same registered in the Office of the Registering Authority. Thus, there was no violation of provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act in this regard.
(2) HDFC Chubb General Insurance Co. V/s. Ila Gupta & others dtd. 14.12.2006. We would like to cull-out important portion from Para-1 of the said judgement as under:
“Complainant purchased Mercedez Car for a sum of Rs.23,43,747/- and insured with Petitioner Insurance Company and he had taken temporary registration certificate which was valid for a month and later it was revalidated for another one month. The Car fell into pot hole incidentally in a flooded road and got damaged. It was repaired by M/s. Cama Motors and Complainant claimed for recovery of repair and parking charges. The Petitioner Insurance Company repudiated the claim on the ground that the vehicle did not have permanent registration No. and the vehicle should not have been plied on the road. The question is that while issuing cover note and Policy, it has been mentioned in the relevant column for registration that the registration has been applied for……. Taking FT premium of Rs.81,476/- from the Respondent and thereafter repudiated the claim on flimsy ground is not justifiable and there is no reasonable to interfere with the well reasoned order of the Hon’ble State Commission. Hence, Revision Petition is dismissed by the Hon’ble National Commission.
(3) Revision Petition No. 497/2012 filed before the Hon’ble National Commission, Oriental Insurance Company v/s. Swami Devi Dayal. We would like to cull-out important portion of the judgement as under:
Admittedly, vehicle was registered with Engine No. & Chassis No. along with name of the owner. Registering Authority has registered the vehicle with permanent No. HR-03-J-3077 on 18.01.2008 by compounding the delays. Thus, provision of Motor Vehicles Act stood complied with. OP admitting the factum of accident and damages could not have repudiated the claim on the sole ground that the vehicle was not permanently registered within a period of 30 days …….. We do not find any error in the order of the Hon’ble State Commission
9. Taking the present case on hand, on the background of the guidelines of the said decisions quoted by the Learned Counsel for the Complainant, it is no doubt true that in the present case on hand the temporary registration granted by the RTO Bangalore was expired on 20.03.2011 and accident took place on 08.02.2012. Complainant has neither applied for continuation of temporary registration nor for getting permanent registration certificate from the RTO. Whereas, in the said decisions, the Complainants have paid some amount for continuation of the temporary registration and permanent registration was granted in the last citation. So, we are of the view that the facts of the present case on hand and the facts and circumstances of the above decisions are on different footings. So, the said citations will not come to the rescue of the Complainant in any manner. So, making careful scrutiny of the oral & documentary evidence of the Complainant and testimony of the employee of the OP, it is vivid and clear that the Complainant has plied the vehicle on road on the date of the accident without getting registration certificate from the concerned RTO. The act of the Complainant in plying the vehicle on a road without getting either temporary registration or permanent registration certificate from the concerned RTO as on the date of accident amounts to negligence and violation of terms & conditions of the Policy issued by the Ops. Besides, u/s. 192 of Motor Vehicles Act, use of vehicle without registration amounts to offence punishable upto one year or with a fine of Rs.10,000/- or with both. So, under the circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the material evidence of OP placed before the Forum is more believable, trust-worthy and acted upon than the oral & documentary evidence of the Complainant and as such we hold that the Complainant who knocks the door of the Forum seeking relief has miserably failed to prove this point with clear and tangible material evidence that Ops are negligent and there is deficiency of service on the part of Ops in not making settlement of his claim and accordingly we answer this point in the negative.
10. Point No. 2 - In view of the negative finding on Point No. 1, the Complainant is not entitled to any relief as prayed in the Complaint. Accordingly, we answer this point in the negative. In the result, for the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
Complaint of the Complainant is hereby dismissed. No costs.
Supply free copy of this order to both the parties.
Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Forum on this, the 29th June 2013.
H.M. SHIVALINGAPPA J.N. HAVANUR
Member President
