BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.298 of 2015
Date of Instt. 14.07.2015
Date of Decision : 08.09.2016
Gurchetan Ram son of Mohinder Singh, R/o Village and Post Office Bara Pind, Patti Jaiseki, Tehsil Phillaur, District Jalandhar.
..........Complainant
Versus
1.Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, 14-A, 2nd Floor, Ohri Tower, Model Town, GT Road, Phagwara through its Branch Manager.
2.Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, SCO-14, 4th Floor, Urban Estate Phase, Sector-5, Panchkula, Haryana, through its Motor Claim Manager.
3.M/s Aggarwal Motors, VPO Rurka Kalan, Tehsil Phillaur, District Jalandhar-144031 through its Manager/Authorized Signatory.
.........Opposite parties
Complaint Under Section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act.
Before: S. Bhupinder Singh (President)
Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)
Present: Sh.Maninder Ralh Adv., counsel for the complainant.
Sh.Raman Sharma Adv., counsel for OPs No.1 & 2.
Sh.Rohit Chhabra Adv., counsel for OP No.3.
Order
Bhupinder Singh (President)
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of 'The Consumer Protection Act' against the opposite parties (hereinafter called as OPs) on the averments that the complainant purchased a motorcycle, make Platina from OP No.3 on 31.5.2014 with temporary registration No.PB-08-BM-9208 and got the same insured with OP No.1 vide insurance policy No.OG15-1218-1802-00000969 dated 31.5.2014. The complainant submitted that at the time of sale of the vehicle, all the charges for RC, insurance, temporary number, digital number, etc were received by OP No.3 from the complainant. However, the said motorcycle was stolen by some unknown person on 2.8.2014 and the matter was reported to the police station Goraya District Jalandhar. The OP No.1 was also informed. Police could not trace out the vehicle. The claim was lodged with the OPs No.1 & 2 but the OPs No.1 & 2 refused to make any payment under policy on the pretext that the RC of the vehicle was prepared on a later date i.e. after the theft of the vehicle. The complainant submitted that the complainant had deposited the amount for RC of the vehicle in question with the OP No.3 on the same date when the vehicle was purchased i.e. 31.5.2014. Therefore, there is no fault on the part of the complainant. As such, the OPs were legally bound to pay the claim to the complainant jointly and severally but they did not pay the claim to the complainant. On such averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the OPs to pay the insurance claim of the lost motorcycle. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.
2. Upon notice, OPs appeared through counsels and filed their written replies. In its written reply, OPs No.1 and 2 pleaded that at the time of theft of the vehicle on 2.8.2014, the insured vehicle was being used without registration number, thereby, violating the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act and policy terms and conditions. The temporary registration number allotted to the vehicle of the complainant for the period from 31.5.2014 to 29.6.2014 and that period had already expired. Whereas, the vehicle was got registered by the complainant after the incident of theft and the permanent registration number was allotted to the motorcycle is PB-08-CT-8292 with its registration date 13.8.2014. So, there is violation of section 39 of the Motor Vehicle Act. The OPs No.1 & 2 wrote letters dated 25.11.2014 and 5.12.2014 asking the complainant to explain within 7 days from the date of receipt of the aforesaid letters as to why his claim should not be due to violation of Motor Vehicle Act as well as terms and conditions of the policy as the insured vehicle was not having valid registration certificate at the material time of theft but the complainant did not respond to the aforesaid letters. As such, the claim of the complainant was repudiated vide letter dated 20.12.2014 and the complainant was informed accordingly.
3. In its written reply, OP No.3 pleaded that when the vehicle was purchased by the complainant from OP No.3, at that time charges of temporary number, insurance were deposited by the complainant with the OP No.3 and only estimation charges of RC and digital number were given to the complainant. However, on 13.8.2014 the complainant deposited the fee of RC of the vehicle to OP No.3 and then form for getting new RC was filled through online by OP No.3 and thereafter RC was handed over to the complainant on receiving the same form the concerned department.
4. In support of his complaint, the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C9 and closed his evidence.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs No.1 & 2 has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OA alongwith copies of documents Ex.O1 to Ex.O8 and closed evidence. Further learned counsel for OP No.3 has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW3/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R5 and closed evidence.
6. We have heard the Ld. counsel for the parties, minutely gone through the record and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of Ld. counsels for the parties.
7. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties, it is clear that the complainant purchased motorcycle make Platina from OP No.3 on 31.5.2014 with temporary registration No.PB-08-BM-9208 and got the same insured with OP No.1 vide insurance policy No.OG15-1218-1802-00000969 dated 31.5.2014 Ex.C2. The complainant submitted that at the time of sale of the vehicle, all the charges for RC, insurance, temporary number, digital number, etc were received by OP No.3 from complainant vide receipt Ex.C3. However, the said motorcycle was stolen by some unknown person on 2.8.2014 and the matter was reported to the police station Goraya District Jalandhar, copy of complaint in this regard was attached with the FIR No.4 dated 7.1.2014 PS Goraya, copy of which is Ex.C5. The OP No.1 was also informed. Police could not trace out the vehicle. The claim was lodged with the OPs No.1 & 2 but the OPs No.1 & 2 refused to make any payment under policy on the pretext that the RC of the vehicle was prepared on a later date i.e. after the theft of the vehicle. The complainant submitted that the complainant had deposited the amount for RC of the vehicle in question with the OP No.3 on the same date when the vehicle was purchased i.e. 31.5.2014 vide receipt Ex.C3. Therefore, there is no fault on the part of the complainant. As such, the OPs were legally bound to pay the claim to the complainant jointly and severally but they did not pay the claim to the complainant. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the OPs qua the complainant.
8. Whereas the case of the OPs No.1 & 2 is that at the time of theft of the vehicle on 2.8.2014, the insured vehicle was being used without registration number, thereby, violating the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act and policy terms and conditions. The temporary registration number allotted to the vehicle of the complainant for the period from 31.5.2014 to 29.6.2014 and that period had already expired. Whereas, the vehicle was got registered by the complainant after the incident of theft and the permanent registration number was allotted to the motorcycle is PB-08-CT-8292 with its registration date 13.8.2014 as is evident from the copy of certificate of registration Ex.C4. So, there is violation of section 39 of the Motor Vehicle Act. The OPs No.1 & 2 wrote letters dated 25.11.2014 Ex.O5 and 5.12.2014 Ex.O6 asking the complainant to explain within 7 days from the date of receipt of the aforesaid letters as to why his claim should not be, due to violation of Motor Vehicle Act as well as terms and conditions of the policy as the insured vehicle was not having valid registration certificate at the material time of theft but the complainant did not respond to the aforesaid letters. As such, the claim of the complainant was repudiated vide letter dated 20.12.2014 Ex.O7 and the complainant was informed accordingly. Learned counsel for the OPs No.1 & 2 submitted that under these circumstances, the OPs No.1 & 2 have rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant. So, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OPs No.1 & 2 qua the complainant.
9. Whereas the case of the OP No.3 is that when the vehicle was purchased by the complainant from OP No.3, at that time charges of temporary number, insurance were deposited by the complainant with the OP No.3 and only estimation charges of RC and digital number were given to the complainant. However, on 13.8.2014 the complainant deposited the fee of RC of the vehicle to OP No.3 and then form for getting new RC was filled through online by OP No.3 and thereafter RC was handed over to the complainant on receiving the same form the concerned department, copy of deduction of tax dated 13.8.2014 Ex.R3. The OP No.3, therefore, submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP No.3 qua the complainant.
10. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant purchased a Platina motorcycle from OP No.3 on 31.5.2014 vide invoice Ex.R2 for a sum of Rs.39,960/- and he got the same insured with the OP No.1 vide insurance policy Ex.O1 for the period from 31.5.2014 to 30.5.2015 through OP No.3. The complainant deposited all the charges for RC, insurance, temporary number, digital number etc with OP No.3 on the day when the vehicle was purchased vide receipt Ex.C3 which bears the stamp of the OP No.3 with signatures on behalf of OP No.3. The OP No.3 has admitted that the complainant has deposited only charges of temporary number and insurance on 31.5.2014 and only estimation charges of RC, digital number were given to the complainant. Thereby, the OP No.3 has admitted the execution of this receipt but denied the receipt of entire amount of Rs.14,000/- which included amount of RC Rs.3190/-, charges of insurance Rs.1150/-, charges of temporary number Rs.200/-, charges of digital No.650/- and PF Rs.1500/-. The OP No.3 issued temporary registration number to the vehicle of the complainant i.e. No.PB-08-BM-9208 which was valid upto 29.6.2014. Therefore the complainant/OP No.3 were bound to get the vehicle permanently registered with the registering authority on or before 29.6.2014 i.e. before the expiry of the temporary registration number. The complainant has submitted that he deposited the amount of Rs.14,000/- with the OP No.3 vide receipt No.C3. As such, OP No.3 was bound to get the vehicle of the complainant registered with the registering authority and get prepared the RC of the vehicle of the complainant by 29.6.2014. The execution of this document Ex.C3 has been admitted by the OP No.3 but they stated that only estimate was given to the complainant vide this document Ex.C3. However, OP No.3 has admitted that the complainant paid Rs.1150/- for insurance and Rs.200/- for temporary registration number out of this amount which version of OP No.3 is not believable because no where on this document the OP No.3 has written that they received part payment of this document Ex.C3 i.e. insurance amount Rs.1150/- and fee of temporary registration number Rs.200/- and the balance amount was not paid by the complainant because the OP No.3 has not given any endorsement on this document Ex.C3 that they have received the part payment nor gave any other receipt to the complainant regarding the receipt of insurance amount and fee of temporary registration number. Nor the OP has pleaded in their written version that only part payment was made by the complainant. However, OP No.3 has produced on record delivery memo Ex.R1 dated 27.5.2014 in which they have stated that they received Rs.8000/-, whereas the balance amount of Rs.6000/- plus Rs.650/- for digi is there, but this receipt is dated 27.5.2014 and that amount has been received by the OP No.3 on 27.5.2014, whereas the receipt Ex.C3 is dated 31.5.2014 which shows that on 31.5.2014 the OP No.3 received the balance amount from the complainant which included the amount of RC of the vehicle i.e. motorcycle of the complainant. So it is the OP No.3 who was bound to get the vehicle of the complainant registered with the registering authority by 29.6.2014 but the OP No.3 did not do so. Rather, they handed over the RC of the vehicle of the complainant on 13.8.2014 and the OP No.3 further submitted that the complainant deposited the amount of RC with the OP No.3 on 13.8.2014 and then they submitted the documents with the registering authority on 13.8.2014 online and got the vehicle registered on the same day i.e. 13.8.2014 and handed over the RC of the vehicle in question to the complainant on the same day i.e. 13.8.2014. This plea of the OP No.3 is totally unbelievable because the OP No.3 could not produce any receipt or any document or any cogent evidence to prove that the complainant paid the registration fee of the vehicle in question to OP No.3 on 13.8.2014. Moreover, it is not possible that the OP No.3 submitted the documents regarding registration of the vehicle of the complainant with the registering authority on 13.8.2014 and got the RC prepared on the same day and then handed over the RC of the vehicle to the complainant on the same day i.e. 13.8.2014 because when the papers are submitted for the registration of any vehicle, the engine number and chassis number of the vehicle are got traced on the paper by the registering authority. The vehicle should be present before the registering authority for tracing out of the engine number and chassis number of the vehicle in question. Whereas the vehicle of the complainant had already been stolen by some unknown person on 2.8.2014. So how the OP No.3 submitted the papers regarding registration of the vehicle of the complainant with the registering authority on 13.8.2014 and got the RC prepared on the same day i.e. 13.8.2014. Therefore, it stands fully proved on record that the RC of the vehicle in question could not be got prepared by OP No.3 within stipulated period i.e. 29.6.2014 and due to lapse or deficiency of service on the part of OP No.3, the RC of the vehicle of the complainant was got prepared by OP No.3 on 13.8.2014 i.e. after the theft of the vehicle in question.
11. As regards claim against OPs No.1 & 2 regarding the theft of the vehicle, it stands fully proved on record that the vehicle was stolen when the RC of the vehicle was not in existence and the vehicle was not registered with any registering authority. So, there was violation of the provisions of section 39 of the Motor Vehicle Act. It has been held by Hon'ble National Commission in case Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd Vs. Vidya Bai 2015(1) CPJ 384 that where nothing was produced by the complainant as evidence that “after getting vehicle insured she ever applied for extension of temporary registration or applied for permanent registration as contemplated under section 39 of the Motor Vehicle Act. In such circumstances, no deficiency in service can be attributed on the part of the petitioner/ insurance company as there is fundamental breach of conditions of policy and claim was rightly repudiated by the insurance company”. The same view has been taken by Hon'ble National Commission in case IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs. Pratap Bhagwan Patil 2015(2) CPJ 739. Similar are the facts of the present case.
12. The OPs No.1 & 2 repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that the vehicle was stolen when it was not registered with any registering authority and the complainant could not produce any evidence that he has applied for the registration of the vehicle in question. Rather the facts proves that the vehicle was got registered on 13.8.2014 whereas the vehicle was stolen on 2.8.2014. So, OPs No.1 & 2 were justified in repudiating the claim of the complainant under the insurance policy in question vide letter dated 20.12.2014 Ex.O7. However, it stands fully proved on record that the vehicle of the complainant could not be got registered with the registering authority due to lapse or deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.3 and the complainant lost his vehicle on 2.8.2014 which was stolen by some unknown person and could not be traced out by the police. So, the complainant suffered loss due to lapse, negligence, deficiency in service on the part of OP No.3 as the complainant also could not get theft claim of the vehicle from the insurance company i.e. OPs No.1 & 2 due to non registration of the vehicle at the time of theft of the insured vehicle. Consequently, this Forum is of the opinion that the OP No.3 is liable to compensate the complainant for the loss he has suffered due to theft of this insured vehicle and due to non registration of the vehicle at the time of theft. Consequently, we hold that the OP No.3 is liable to pay the amount of the vehicle to the complainant.
13. Resultantly, we partly allow the complaint against OP No.3 with cost and OP No.3 is directed to pay the price of the vehicle i.e. Rs.39,960/- as per invoice Ex.C3 dated 31.5.2014 within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which OP No.3 shall be liable to pay interest @ Rs.9/- % per annum on this amount from the date of filing of the complaint till the payment is made to the complainant. The OP No.3 is also directed to pay the cost of litigation to the complainant to the tune of Rs.2000/-. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cost, under rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Dated Parminder Sharma Bhupinder Singh
08.09.2016 Member President
