Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/20/846

ORIENTAL INSU.CO.LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

AVDHESH GAUD - Opp.Party(s)

SH.R.TIWARI

18 Sep 2024

ORDER

M. P. STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

 

FIRST APPEAL NO. 846 OF 2020

(Arising out of order dated 10.11.2020 passed in C.C.No.84/2014 by District Commission, Bhopal-2)

 

ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

THROUGH DIVISIONAL MANAGER,

DIVISION OFFICE NO.1,

34, GURUNANAK COMPLEX,

MALVIYA NAGAR, NEW MARKET, BHOPAL (M.P.)                                                     … APPELLANT.

 

                  Versus

 

1. AWADHESH GOUD,

    S/O SHRI LALLU RAM GOUD,

    R/O J-132, ANNA NAGAR, A-SECTOR,

    GOVINDPURA, BHOPAL (M.P.)

 

2. SANGHI AUTOMOBILES,

    THROUGH PROPRIETOR,

    M.P.NAGAR, ZONE-1, BHOPAL (M.P.)                                                                  …. RESPONDENTS.  

 

BEFORE :

            HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI                : ACTING PRESIDENT

            HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY        :          MEMBER

                       

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

                Shri Ravindra Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant.

             None for the respondent no.1.

             Shri Uday Raj Singh Parmar, learned counsel for the respondent no.2.

 

O R D E R

(Passed On  18.09.2024)

         The following order of the Commission was delivered by A. K. Tiwari, Acting President:

           Being aggrieved by the order dated 10.11.2020 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal-2 (for short ‘District Commission) in C.C.No.84/2014 whereby the complaint filed by complainant/respondent no.1 has been allowed, the opposite party no.2/appellant has filed this appeal.

-2-

2.                The facts of the case as narrated by the complainant/respondent no.1 (hereinafter referred to as ‘complainant’) are that he had purchased a Bajaj Pulsar 150 motorcycle from opposite party no.1 for a sum of Rs.77,719/-. The subject vehicle which was insured with the opposite party no.2-insurance company was stolen during warranty period of which report was lodged with the police on 06.06.2013 and FR was also executed. The complainant filed a claim with the insurance company but due to deficiency in service on part of opposite parties he was deprived of claim. He therefore alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on part of opposite parties filed a complaint before the District Commission.

3.                The opposite party no.1/respondent no.2-Sanghi Automobiles in its reply before the District Commission submitted that at the time of delivery of vehicle cover note of insurance was given to the complainant. The opposite party no.1 also deposited the tax with the RTO, and it is the complainant who had to get the vehicle verified before the RTO. The complainant is not entitled to get any relief from the opposite party no.1. It is thus prayed that the complaint be dismissed against it.

4.                The opposite party no.2/appellant-insurance company in its reply before the District Commission has submitted that the claim filed by the complainant is pending before the insurance company and therefore

-3-

the present complaint is liable to be dismissed being immature. The complainant did not take any action to get the vehicle registered within 7 days from the date of purchase. The complainant violated Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The complainant deposited the road tax after theft. The complainant was using the vehicle without registration since the date of purchase. The claim was not decided on merits. It is thus prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

5.                The District Commission allowing the complaint directed the opposite party-insurance company to pay IDV of subject motorcycle to the complainant. Hence this appeal by the insurance company.

6.                Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record.

7.                Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2/appellant-insurance company argued that the claim of the complainant was pending before the insurance company for decision on merits, meanwhile, the complainant has filed the present complaint and therefore there was no cause of action arose to file complaint. The complaint being immature was liable to be dismissed. He argued that at the time of theft the subject vehicle was not having registration nor fee for registration was deposited with the RTO. The investigating officer of the insurance company enquired from the RTO and found that till the date of accident no steps were taken to get the vehicle registered. The insurance company also sought

-4-

clarification from the complainant but the complainant failed to give so. He argued that as per Section 39 of MV Act, no vehicle can be plied on road without registration. He therefore prayed for setting aside the impugned order. He placed reliance on the decision of the National Commission in Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd & Anr Vs Chandan Malhotra III (2018) CPJ 99 (NC) in support of his contentions. 

8.                Learned counsel for the opposite party no.1/respondent no.2-Sanghi Automobiles argued that at the time of delivery of the vehicle, the cover note of the insurance cover was provided to the complainant. It is the responsibility of the complainant himself to take the vehicle to RTO and to get it registered within stipulated time period after depositing the requisite fee. The opposite party no.1 cannot be held liable if the complainant failed to get the vehicle registered. He argued that the District Commission has erred in directing the opposite parties to give IDV of the vehicle to the complainant. If IDV is payable, it is the insurance company who had to pay IDV of the vehicle to the complainant as the subject vehicle was insured with the insurance company.

9.                The complainant has filed his affidavit along with documents C-1 to C-10, whereas on behalf of the opposite party no.1-Sanghi Automobiles, an affidavit of Bhupendra Gurjar and on behalf of opposite party no.2-insurance company, affidavit of Madhu Bisoi, Divisional

-5-

Manager and affidavit of Harsh Agrawal, Law Manager along with documents D-1 to D-6 have been filed.

10.              We have heard rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. Admittedly, the complainant had purchased the Pulsar 150 motorcycle for Rs.77,719/- from the opposite party no.1-Sanghi Automobiles on 28.05.2013 (C-1) out of which Rs.32,870/- were financed by Bajaj Auto Finance Limited (C-2). The cover note (C-4) was issued covering the insurance of the subject vehicle for the period with effect from 29.05.2013 to 28.05.2014. C-5 is the insurance policy. IDV of the subject vehicle was Rs.65,850/-.

11.              It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant has nowhere in his complaint and legal notice given to the opposite party has stated that when did the subject vehicle was stolen. However, from the FR executed in the matter (C-8) and FIR (D-2) filed by the insurance company, it is found that the subject vehicle was stolen on 05.06.2013 from Platinum Plaza Park of which the lodged FIR on 06.06.2013. The complainant has not filed copy of FIR.

12.              On perusal of record we find that the complainant on 06.06.2013 deposited Rs.4,698/- towards road tax and Rs.380/- for form 20 with the RTO for registration of the vehicle i.e. the very next day of theft of subject motor cycle. Thus it is clear that the subject vehicle was

-6-

purchased on 28.05.2013, stolen on 05.06.2013 and the complainant lodged FIR on 06.06.2013 and took steps for registration of the vehicle on 06.06.2013 i.e. just after one day of theft. As per provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, it is necessary to get the vehicle registered within 7 days from the date of purchase which end on 03.06.2013. 

13.              It is also not a case of the complainant that he got temporary registration of the vehicle. The subject vehicle purchased on 28.05.2013 and till the date of theft i.e. 05.06.2013 the complainant did not take any steps to get it registered. Meaning thereby at the time of theft the subject vehicle was not registered which is fundamental breach of policy condition as also the provisions of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicle Act.

14.              Hon’ble Supreme Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sushil Kumar Godara IV (2021) CPJ 10 (SC) has clearly held that “in case of theft after expiry of temporary registration, there is nothing on record to show that respondent had applied for registration or that he was awaiting registration. It is of no consequence that car was not plying on road when it was stolen, material fact that it was driven to place from where it was stolen after expiry of temporary registration.  On the date of theft vehicle had been driven/used without valid registration, amounting to clear violation of Sections 39 and 192 of Motor Vehicle Act which results in

 

-7-

fundamental breach of terms and conditions of the policy entitling insurer to repudiate claim.”

15.              The complainant did not take any steps to get the vehicle registered within stipulated time period meanwhile, the subject vehicle was stolen thus there is clear glaring negligence on part of the complainant in not getting the vehicle registered and plying on road without registration for a period of more than a week. It is not the case of the complainant that he did not ply the vehicle on road and stolen from his house but in the FIR it has been specifically mentioned that it was stolen from Platinum Plaza Park. Using of vehicle on public road without any registration is not only violation of Section 39 of Motor Vehicles Act punishable under Section 192 of Motor Vehicles Act but also fundamental breach of terms and conditions of the policy contract.

16.              In the present case, we following the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in (Sushil Kumar Godara) (supra) are of a considered opinion that since at the time of theft the vehicle was not registered constitutes a fundamental breach of policy terms and conditions as also provisions of Motor Vehicles Act. In such circumstances, the complainant is not entitled to get any relief.

17.              For the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the insurance company cannot held deficient in service in repudiating

-8-

the claim and the District Commission vide impugned order has erroneously allowed the complaint. In our considered view, the impugned order passed by the District Commission cannot be sustained as the complainant is not entitled to get any claim. Accordingly, the impugned order is hereby set-aside. Consequently, the complaint is dismissed.

18.              In the result, this appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. No order as to costs.  

                     (A. K. Tiwari)              (Dr. Srikant Pandey)  

                  Acting President                      Member