Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/16/163

Pritpal Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bajaj Allianz General Ins.Co.Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

HSGrewal Adv.

08 May 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. : 163 of 02.03.2016

   Date of Decision            :  08.05.2017

 

Mrs. Pritpal Kaur w/o Manpreet Singh r/o 48-H, S.B.S.Nagar, Near City Central, District Ludhiana.

….. Complainant

Versus

 

1.The Manager, Bajaj Allianz, General Insurance Company Limited, G.E.Plaza, Airport Road, Yerawada, Pune-411006.

2.The Manager, Bajaj Allianz, General Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, Feroz Gandhi Market, District Ludhiana.

 

…Opposite parties

 

          (Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

 

QUORUM:

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

SH.PARAM JIT SINGH BEWLI, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

 

For complainant                      :         Sh.Ajay Chawla, Advocate

For Ops                         :         Sh.G.S.Kalyan, Advocate

 

PER G.K DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.                          Complainant after purchasing Maruti Ritz VDI car from Stan Auto Pvt. Ltd on 18.10.2012 for an amount of Rs.5,85,068/-, got the same insured from OP by paying premium amount of Rs.16,658/- to agent. Policy No.OG-13-2013-1801-00005033 was issued in this respect. Said vehicle met with an accident on 9.3.2013 at about 11:30 PM, when Sunny son of Naresh Kumar was driving the same. Sh.Manpreet Singh, husband of the complainant along with complainant were in the car at the time of accident. A heavy vehicle with dazzling light was coming from the front, due to which, those lights reflected in the eyes of Sunny and car dashed against the tractor trolley in the back side. Lot of damage caused to the insured car and even injuries were sustained by the occupants, due to which, they were admitted in CMC Hospital, Ludhiana. DDR No.12 dated 10.3.2012 was registered at PP Katani Kalan, P.S.Koom-Kalan, District Ludhiana. Thereafter, request with OP2 was submitted for issue of claim owing to total loss of the car. Full claim has not been issued by OP2 on behalf of OP1 till date, despite the fact that claim payable is of amount of Rs.5,52,450/- because the car was six months old on the date of accident. Despite numerous visits by the complainant to the office of Ops, her claim not passed and as such, same caused mental harassment and agony to the complainant, due to which, this complaint filed after serving registered notice dated 16.9.2015 through counsel by pleading deficiency in service on the part of Ops. Prayer made for directing Ops to pay compensation of Rs.5,52,450/- with interest @12% per annum. Compensation for mental harassment and agony of Rs.1 lac and litigation expenses of Rs.33,000/- more claimed.

2.                In joint written statement filed by Ops, it is pleaded interalia as if complaint does not disclose any cause of action; intimation to the insurance company regarding the accident was submitted after 222 days of the accident; driver of the car himself was negligent in driving at the time of accident; complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands because she has suppressed the material facts and that repudiation of claim is justified in view of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Admittedly, after receipt of the claim intimation, surveyor was deputed, who submitted report dated 17.10.2013 by assessing the loss at Rs.4,60,000/-. After receipt of that report, Ops found certain discrepancies in the claim and thereafter, they sent registered letters dated 17.12.2013, 27.12.2013 and 8.1.2014 to the complainant for informing him that at the time of loss, vehicle was not having valid registration certificate and that there was delay of 222 days in submitting the intimation of loss. Besides, copy of FIR along with original for verification; record of medical treatment and photographs snapped on the spot were demanded from the complainant. It is claimed that the complainant has not replied to these letters and as such, repudiation of claim took place as per the terms and conditions of the policy. The insured vehicle was having temporary registration number PB-10-DD-(Temp)/2012/1664 with validity from 18.10.2012 to 17.11.2012. After expiry of this validity period, complainant as insured was supposed to get her vehicle permanently registered with the regional transport authority, but the complainant applied to Regional Transport Authority for getting her vehicle permanently registered on 15.10.2013 i.e. after the date of accident. No person can drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle can cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act as per Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act and as such, in view of violation of provisions of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act being committed, repudiation of claim alleged to be quite appropriate. It is claimed that complaint is barred by limitation and this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction.

3.                Complainant to prove her case tendered in evidence her affidavit Ex.CA along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C11 and then she along with her counsel closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, counsel for the Ops tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RA of Sh.Navjeet Singh, Assistant Manager of Ops along with documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R19 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

5.                Written arguments not submitted by any of the parties. Oral arguments of counsel for parties heard and records gone through minutely. 

6.                It is vehemently contended by Sh.Ajay Chawla, Advocate for complainant that dispute regarding date of accident as 9.3.2013 at about 11:30 PM is not there and that submission of counsel for complainant has force because it is admitted case of Ops that after the date of this accident, surveyor was appointed, who assessed the loss at Rs.4,60,000/-. Copy of surveyor report is produced on record as Ex.R1. As it is admitted by Ops in the written statement and submitted affidavit that loss of Rs.4,60,000/- was assessed and on verification, driving license of the driver was found OK and as such, it is vehemently contended by counsel for complainant that complainant entitled to the full insurance amount because it is a case of total loss. However, these submissions vehemently controverted by Sh.G.S.Kalyan, Advocate for Ops by contending that the vehicle in question was not having valid registration certificate on the day of accident and as such, in view of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act, repudiation of claim is fully justified. After considering the pros and cons of rival contention of counsel for the parties, we find force in the submissions of counsel for Ops.

7.                Copy of certificate of registration of the vehicle in question produced on record as Ex.C1 by the complainant, but as Ex.R6 by the OPs. From perusal of this certificate, it is made out that the vehicle in question got permanent registration certificate as PB-10-EJ-2461 with registration date 15.10.2013. However, the accident in question took place on 9.3.2013 as per case of the complainant and as borne from the copy of DDR Ex.C8. DDR Ex.C8 was lodged on 10.3.2013 i.e. immediately after the accident and as such, certainly there was no delay in reporting the matter to the police. Even in DDR Ex.C8, it is mentioned as if the car was bearing registration No.PB-10-DD-(T)/1664. This number is a temporary registration number as borne from the copy of Form C.R.Ex.R4. Copy of application for getting permanent registration number is produced on record as Ex.R5 and as such, from all this documentary evidence available on record, it is made out that the vehicle in question was not having valid temporary registration certificate   even on date of accident and that is why, mention of temporary registration certificate alone made in DDR. This temporary registration certificate was having         validity for 30 days w.e.f.18.10.2012 onwards is a fact borne from the contents of Ex.R4, the temporary registration certificate. So, permanent registration certificate was required to be obtained by the complainant w.e.f.17.11.2012 onwards. However, the permanent registration number got by the complainant on 15.10.2013 because date of registration specifically mentioned as 15.10.2013 on Ex.R6=Ex.C1. So, certainly the vehicle in question was not having valid registration certificate on the date of accident namely 9.3.2013 because no documentary or oral evidence produced by the complainant to establish as to what was done by her in getting the permanent registration certificate obtained after 17.11.2012. Rather, evidence produced by the parties do not at all establish as to on which date application for getting permanent registration number of the vehicle in question was filed by the complainant with Motor Vehicle Registration Authority. On filing of the application for getting the permanent registration number obtained, certainly the Motor Vehicle Authority was to issue the slip showing as if application has been received on a particular date. That slip has not been produced and nor any record from the office of DTO summoned by the complainant for establishing that application for getting the permanent registration certificate was filed on or before 17.11.2012, when the validity of temporary registration certificate was to expire. So, certainly the vehicle in question was not having the valid registration certificate on the date of accident namely 9.3.2013.

8.                As per law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Narinder Singh vs. New India Assurance Co.Ltd and anothers-2014(4) Consumer Law Today(Volume 64)- page-1, after expiry of temporary registration, the complainant concerned not entitled for insurance claim for compensation for damage to the vehicle that took place in course of accident on the date, when the vehicle was driven without any valid registration certificate. It is so because using the vehicle on a public road without valid registration certificate is also an offence punishable under Section 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act and even the plying of the same amounts to fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of the policy contract. Ratio of this case is fully applicable to the facts of the present case because after the expiry of the validity of temporary registration certificate on 17.11.2012, the vehicle in question was plied without obtaining valid registration certificate and as such, the same was plied on a public road in violation of the Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act. So, virtually the vehicle in question was plied for commission of an offence punishable u/s 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act as well as in violation of terms and conditions of the insurance contract agreement. Being so, repudiation of claim is fully justified. Though, counsel for complainant contends that owing to issue of permanent registration certificate Ex.R6=Ex.C1, the vehicle was having valid registration certificate and as such, repudiation of claim is unjustified, but that submission of counsel for complainant has no force because permanent registration certificate obtained w.e.f.15.10.2013 i.e. the date of registration endorsed on Ex.C1=Ex.R6. This permanent registration w.e.f. 15.10.2013 not to operate retrospectively and as such, certainly the vehicle in question was not having valid registration certificate on the date of accident namely i.e. 9.3.2013. Rather, permanent registration number got by the complainant after seven months and five days of the occurrence of accident. It is not at all shown by the complainant that at the time of getting this registration certificate obtained, the Licensing Authority was informed about meeting of the vehicle with accident, but despite that registration certificate was issued. There is no provision under the Motor Vehicles Act, under which, permanent registration certificate issued will be deemed to be issued retrospectively. Vehicle in question is not a vehicle having chassis to which body has not been attached or the same detained in a workshop, beyond the period of one month of issue of temporary registration certificate and as such, benefit of provisions of Section 43(2) of Motor Vehicles Act not available to the complainant. As the vehicle in question is not of the category mentioned in 43 of the Motor Vehicles Act and as such, certainly the Motor Vehicles Licensing Authority even has no power to extend the validity of temporary registration certificate of the vehicle in question beyond 17.11.2012 or retrospectively. Being so, it has to be held that as the vehicle in question was plied without valid registration certificate on the day of accident and as such, in view of violation of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act, repudiation of claim is fully justified.

9.                Certainly perusal of letters Ex.R12, Ex.R14 and Ex.R16 reveals that the complainant was informed that he was not having valid registration certificate on the day of accident and as such, the vehicle was plied in violation of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act and even he was informed to supply  certain    documents consisting of copies of FIR, medical treatment record etc, but despite that complainant has not submitted reply to these letters despite grant of time of seven days each through these notices sent through registered posts qua which the postal receipts are produced on record as Ex.R13, Ex.R15 and Ex.R17 and as such, repudiation of claim through letter Ex.R11 is quite appropriate. As complainant herself failed to give due explanation in response to letters Ex.R12, Ex.R14 and Ex.R16 and as such, no other option was left with Ops except to repudiate the claim       after finding that vehicle in question was plied in violation of provisions of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act. So, repudiation of claim is duly justified and there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops.

10.              Therefore, as a sequel of the above discussion, complaint dismissed without any order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules.

11.                        File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

 (Param Jit Singh Bewli)                                   (G.K.Dhir)

 Member                                                               President

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:08.05.2017

Gurpreet Sharma.