Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/827/2016

Amit - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Vikram Tandon

22 Aug 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/827/2016
Date of Institution	:	19/09/2016
Date of Decision	:	22/08/2017

 

Amit son of Sh. Om Parkash, resident of H.No.350, Sector 41-A, Chandigarh

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, SCO No.14, IVth Floor, Urban Estate, Sector-5, Panchkula, through its Branch Manager/Authorised person

……Opposite Party

CORAM :	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	PRESIDING MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                               

       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Vikram Tandon, Counsel for complainant
	:	Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Counsel for OP

 

Per Surjeet Kaur, Presiding Member

1.         The facts of the consumer complaint, in brief, are that on 5.2.2016, the complainant purchased a Maruti Alto K-10 car for which a temporary number was given which was valid from 5.2.2016 to 4.3.2016.  The said car was insured with the OP vide policy (Annexure C-3) for the period from 5.2.2016 to 4.2.2017.  The complainant got his vehicle passed from the Inspecting authority on 29.2.2016 before expiry of temporary registration number.  However, as the complainant had to take premium number of his choice, therefore, he could not deposit the file with the Registering Authority before the expiry of temporary number. On 10.3.2016, the vehicle in question of the complainant met with an accident and was badly damaged. The complainant also suffered injuries/fracture in the accident and remained in the hospital from 10.3.2016 to 12.3.2016.  In the meantime the police station Sector 31 took the vehicle in possession and a DDR No.9 dated 13.3.2016 was registered on the statement of the complainant. On 12.3.2016, the complainant took the vehicle from the police station and towed it to his house. The complainant has averred that there was a delay of 55 days in giving intimation to the OP on 4.5.2016 as he was operated upon in the left leg and was on bed rest.  He has further averred that he is the only male son of his parents and his father is a paralytic person. When the complainant filed claim, the OP vide letter dated 23.5.2016 raised some queries which were answered by the complainant vide letter dated 12.6.2016.  Thereafter the complainant also got his vehicle registered with the registering authority.  However, the OP vide its letter dated 18.7.2016 illegally repudiated the claim on the ground that at the material time of loss the registration certificate of the vehicle was not valid and that intimation of accident was not given immediately to the OP. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.         OP in its written reply has not disputed the factual matrix.  However, it has been averred that the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the policy as the vehicle in question was purchased on 5.2.2016 and the same was not registered till the date of loss i.e. 10.3.2016 on which date the temporary number had expired. It has been further averred that the vehicle in question met with an accident on 10.3.2016 whereas the DDR was got registered by the complainant on 13.3.2016 only i.e. after an inordinate and unexplained delay of three days.  The OP was intimated after an inordinate and unexplained delay of 55 days and thus the valuable right of investigating the matter by the OP was abolished.  It has been contended that the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated by the OP after due application of mind. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3.         Rejoinder was filed by the complainant denying all the averments in the written reply of the OP.
4.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 
5.         We have gone through the record and heard the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for the parties.
6.         The sole grouse of the complainant is that the OP illegally repudiated his claim on the ground that at the material time of loss, registration certificate of the vehicle was not valid and intimation of the accident was not given immediately which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. 
7.         The stand taken by the OP is that the complainant violated the terms and conditions of the policy in absence of the permanent registration certificate of the vehicle and also intimated about the accident with an unexplained delay of 55 days, which resulted in repudiation of the claim. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. 
8.         After going through the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is evident as per Annexure C-5, the discharge summary, that the complainant met with an accident so he was admitted in the hospital from 10.3.2016 to 12.3.2016 and thereafter DDR dated 13.3.2016 was registered on the statement of the complainant about the accident of the vehicle in question. It has also been contended in the complaint that the complainant was operated upon in the left leg and was on bed rest, therefore, there was a delay in giving information to the OP with regard to the incident. It has also been contended that the complainant also got his vehicle registered with the Registration Authority later on. Pertinently, a bare reading of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act suggests that driving of an unregistered motor vehicle by any person in any place or any other place is prohibited.
9.         In the present case, the first question that arises for determination is whether the absence of a permanent registration certificate would justify repudiation of the insurance claim?  The answer to the above question is in the negative.  Admittedly, at the time of insurance, the insured vehicle was having temporary registration.  Despite that, the OP Insurance Company, instead of providing the insurance cover only for the period till the temporary registration was valid, insured the vehicle for full one year and charged the premium for the same.  If at all there was any intention on the part of the insurer that in the event of any single violation of Section 39 of the Act, the insurance cover to the subject vehicle would stand withdrawn, the OP Insurance Company was expected to make a clear stipulation in this regard in the insurance contract. This, however, is not the case.  We have gone through the terms and conditions of the insurance contract as also the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act.  There is nothing in the contract or the Motor Vehicles Act to provide that in the event of any single violation of the provision of Section 39 of the Act, the insured shall loose the insurance cover if loss/damage to the vehicle is caused subsequent to the commission of such violation. 
10.         The second question which arises for consideration is whether the delay on the part of the complainant in obtaining the permanent registration certificate needs to be condoned?  The answer to the same is in the affirmative. Admittedly, the vehicle was registered with engine number and chassis number alongwith the name of the owner. The Registration Authority has registered the vehicle with permanent registration number later on by compounding the delay. Thus, the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act stood complied with.  When the contract of insurance was by engine number and chassis number of the vehicle and the delay, if any, in getting the permanent registration number stood condoned by the Registration Authority, then the OP, while admitting the factum of accident and the damage, could not have repudiated the claim on the sole ground that the vehicle was not permanently registered within the period of 30 days.  Reliance in this regard has been placed on The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swami Devi Dayal, RP No.497 of 2012, decided by the Hon’ble National Commission.  Here we are further fortified by the order dated 31.7.2017 passed by our own Hon’ble State Commission in Appeal No.127 of 2017-Chander Pal Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd.
11.         Thirdly, we need to consider the issue of condonation of delay in intimating the present incident to the OP.  Importantly, the complainant has pleaded in para 7 of the complaint that he was operated upon his left leg and was on bed rest and advised by the doctor for limb elevation. Moreover, the father of the complainant is a paralytic person and there is no other male member in the family to take care of various problems as in the present case for giving intimation of the accident to the OP. Mere delay in intimation to the OP cannot result into repudiation of the claim in toto.  In the instant case, the complainant himself god injured and the matter was reported to the police authorities, therefore, we feel that merely delayed intimation regarding the incident to the OP is not sufficient ground to repudiate the claim.  Thus, we are of the opinion that the delay in giving intimation to the OP needs to be condoned. 
12.         We feel that it was mere negligence and in-action on the part of the complainant in not getting the permanent registration certificate in appropriate time.  There is no evidence to show that he had an ulterior motive.  It is difficult to understand why the complainant should be deprived of the claim made by him before the insurance company. Negligence on the part of the complainant cannot be equated with mens rea.  He did not obtain the Registration certificate for his own detriment.  The Insurance Company is not affected by the said negligence on the part of the complainant.
13.         In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed. The same is accordingly partly allowed on non-standard basis i.e. 75% of the IDV. The OP is directed as under:-

(i)     To settle and pay the claim of the complainant to the tune of 75% of the IDV of Rs.3,46,414/- alongwith interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of repudiation till realization.

(ii)    To pay to the complainant Rs.7,500/- as compensation for mental agony, physical pain and inconvenience caused;

(iii)   To pay to the complainant Rs.7,500/- as costs of litigation. 

14.         This order be complied with by the OP within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, it shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of directions at Sr.No.(iii) above.
15.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

 

	Sd/-	Sd/-
22/08/2017	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]
hg	Member	Presiding Member