Delhi

North East

CC/48/2017

MOHD. MAJID - Complainant(s)

Versus

ABHI MOTORS - Opp.Party(s)

31 May 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 48/17

 

In the matter of:

 

	Mohd. Majid R/o L-200/62, Gali No. 07, Gautam Vihar Delhi 110053	Complainant
	Versus
1     2	M/s. Abhi Motors 197, Main Ghonda Chowk, Delhi 110053   M/s. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Plot No. 5, Aditya Tower, 2nd Floor, Laxmi Nagar., Delhi 110092   Also at: S.F. 3, 1st Floor, Aditya Mall, CBD, Near KKD Court, Preet Vihar, Delhi 110092.	Opposite Parties

 

	DATE OF INSTITUTION:	09.02.2017
	RESERVED FOR ORDER:	22.05.2018
	DATE OF DECISION:	31.05.2018

 

 

N.K. Sharma, President

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

Ravindra Shankar Nagar, Member

 

 

 

 

Order passed by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member:-

ORDER

1. The case of the complainant pertains to the purchase of a new e-rickshaw bearing Chassis No. M4 NGKAUR-16D000045 and registration no DL-5ER 0380 from OP1 on 22.07.2016 which the complainant got duly insured with OP2 w.e.f. 22.07.2016 to 21.07.2017 vide Policy                         No. 1305262339000404 against payment of Rs. 4346/-. It has been further submitted by the complainant that on 12.08.2016, the above e-rickshaw was stolen by someone from Gali No. 1, Gautam Vihar, Delhi and the complainant had lodged an e-FIR no. NED/NUP/000273 on 12.08.2016 and the said stolen e-rickshaw was recovered after three days in accidental condition. It has been further submitted that the above e-rickshaw was repaired with the workshop of OP1 under the covered policy of OP2 and the complainant complied with all the formalities required by OP2 and furnished the requisite documents as asked for by OP2 vide letter dated 26.10.2016. Further, OP1 raised a bill of Rs. 46633.85p on 14.10.2016 and demanded the same from the complainant. The complainant asked OP2 to pay the same but OP2 refused to pay the same amount to OP1. It is further submitted by the complainant that the vehicle of complainant was lying with OP1 as mortgaged due to non-payment of bill raised by OP1 due to which the complainant had suffered huge loss of earning since the said E-Rickshaw was his sole source of livelihood in the absence of which, the complainant had reached on the verge of starvation. It has been further submitted by the complainant that OP2 sent a repudiation letter dated 22.11.16 stating that OP2 is not liable to pay any claim to complainant on grounds that the complainant had purchase the e-Rickshaw on 22.07.2016 and had applied for registration certificate on 13.10.2016 and therefore the vehicle was not registered at the time of loss and as per section 39 of MV Act “no person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place on in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribe manner”. It has been further submitted by the complainant that the claim of complainant is very much maintainable u/s 43 sub clause(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act as section 43(1) specifies that the owner of a motor vehicle may apply to any registering authority or prescribed authority to have the vehicle temporarily registered in the prescribed manner and for the issue in the prescribed manner of temporarily certificate of registration and a temporary registration mark. Further, Section 43(2) specified that the registration made under the section shall be valid only for the period not exceeding one month and shall not be renewed. Since the theft of the E-Rickshaw was within one month of its purchase, temporary registration was valid. The complainant further submitted that he had visited office of OPs but again and again but OPs flatly refused to entertain the claim or the vehicle to the complainant and as such the OP have harassed the complainant by its illegal and illegitimate acts and therefore, deficient in rendering services to the complainant and are liable to pay compensation to complainant jointly or severally. Therefore the complainant vide the present complaint has prayed for issuance of directions to OP2 to pay Rs. 44,633.85p to the complainant alongwith interest @ 18% per annum. In addition to above, the complainant has also prayed for directions to OPs to pay Rs.50,000/- to complainant as compensation for mental and physical harassment and torture to complainant besides, payment of Rs. 5100/- as litigation charges.

The complainant has annexed a copy of retail invoice no. NIL dated 22.07.2016 issued by OP1 towards the purchase of above e-rickshaw at the cost of Rs. 1,20,205/-. A copy of insurance policy certificate cum policy schedule bearing no. 1305262339000404 dated 22.07.2016 for a period of one year issued in the favour of complainant by OP2 with premium of Rs. 4346/- with respect to the insurance of the said E-Rickshaw. Besides, the above a copy of F.I.R. dated 12.08.2016 u/s 379/ I P C issued by e-police station pertaining to theft of said E-Rickshaw, estimate dated 14.08.2016 by OP1 towards of repairs of E-Rickshaw bill dated 14.10.2014 for an amount of Rs. 44,633.85p issued by OP1 in respect of repair work of e-rickshaw of the complainant, copy of registered letter / mail issued by OP2 dated 26.10.2016 asking complainant for furnishing documents for process of his insurance claim no. 3116126832 and lastly repudiation letter dated 21.11.2016 has been attached by the complainant.

2. Notice under section 13 of CPA were issued to both the OPs. However OP1 did not appear despite being granted opportunity and was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 26.05.2017.  OP2 refused to receive the summons of this Forum on 04.03.2017 and as such the service of notice was deemed served and in the absence of it appearance the OP2 was also proceeded against ex parte on 10.04.2017.
3. Ex parte affidavit of evidence filed by complainant exhibiting the documents relied upon / filed alongwith the complaint alongwith ex-parte written arguments wherein the complainant reiterated his grievance in the complaint.
4. We have heard the arguments of the complainant and have also gone through the evidence submitted by him. It is establish that the e-rickshaw was purchase by complainant from OP1 on 22.07.2016 and got insured with OP2 the factum of theft is also corroborated by lodging of FIR on 12.08.2016 and the fact that it was sent for repairs to OP1 on 14.08.2016 shows that it was traced and the nature of repairs required shows that it was recovered in damaged condition. However, the vehicle was not registered at the time of taking the insurance as the registration number in the policy note is mentioned as “NEW” but at the time of the theft, the FIR mentioned that the E-rickshaw bearing registration no. DL ST-C-0602 was stolen but as per the complaint, the registration number of vehicle has mentioned as DL-5ER-0380. The complainant has not placed copy of temporary Registration Certificate (R.C)/ receipt/slip issued by concerned RTO with respect to the said e-rickshaw so to indicate as to when the complainant had applied for temporary registration number and what type of registration was done by the Transport Authority and period of its validity. The OP had stated in its repudiation letter dated 22.11.2016 that “since the complainant had applied for registration certificate on 13.10.2016 and the theft / accident of the vehicle occurred on 12.08.2016 and the above vehicle was not registered at the time of loss, the OP was unable to process the claim due to breach of provisions of Motor Vehicle Act and as such the claim was repudiated”. The complainant could not rebut or explain the delay in applying for permanent RC on 13.10.2016 when the subject e-rickshaw was sent for repairs to OP1 having being traced on 14.08.2016 post theft i.e. after two months of its recovery. Accordingly, we are of the view that the complainant has not succeeded in establishing a deficiency in service on the part of OP as his vehicle was not registered and he had not attached a copy of temporary in rebuttal to the repudiation by OP to show that on the date of theft i.e 12.08.2016 or subsequent recovery, the temporary registration was valid. Moreover, the F.I.R. was an e-F.I.R., where  the registration number of the vehicle is not tallying with the registration given in his complaint. Keeping in view the above, we are of the considered view that the complaint of the complainant is devoid of merits and is not supported by sufficient evidence to warrant any action by this Forum against the OPs for want of sufficient evidentiary proof. Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed with no cost payable by either side.
5. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
6. File be consigned to record room.

(Announced on 31.05.2018)     

(N.K. Sharma)      President

(Sonica Mehrotra) Member

(Ravindra Shankar Nagar) Member