Order-17.
Date-25/02/2016.
In this complaint Complainant Prabir Basakby filing this complaint has submitted that complainant is owner of a Bajaj Auto Rickshaw being Registration No. WB25D-7147, Engine No. AFMBTB 03693 and Chasis No. MD2AAAMZZTWB 02416 and complainant purchased the same from Kolkata Bajaj through his financier Rajesh & Co. op no.2 on 07.08.2010 and it was insured with the op no.1 by paying premium of a sum of Rs. 4,297/- against Policy No. OG-13-2401-1803-00005749 for a period from 14.08.2012 to 13.08.2013 having declared value of Rs. 1,05,000/-.
Fact remains that complainant was busy for an emergency family matter and out of station. So, he deputed UttamDey (his relative) and gave his Power of Attorney to supervise the vehicle and maintained the account of his auto rickshaw and to pay the installments to the financier and pay the fine for traffic police case if any and to appear before any police authority or any court matter related to the vehicle on his behalf.
Even the policy period complainant’s vehicle was stolen by some unknown person on 08.04.2013 when complainant was out of station and on his behalf of complainant’s authorized representative UttamDey who is also driver of the vehicle tried to search the vehicle in all the nearest places but he could not trace out and ultimately he approached to the OC of Phool Bagan P.S. and requested to lodge a complaint.
Complaint was heard by the police officer A.K. Roy and noted in his personal diary and asked the complainant to see him after 4/5 days. So, according to the police officer, complainant met with the IO at police station and demanded a copy of FIR when IO asked him to submit original registration papers of the vehicle such as smart card, permit, tax token, insurance etc. but he could not submit as because those documents were stolen with the vehicle.
When police officer asked the complainant to call the registered owner of the vehicle to lodge complain, complainant asked the police officer that the owner of the vehicle is out of station for some emergency family matter and he is not available now. But police officer did not pay any heed of his comment and refused to take his complain.
Subsequently complainant being holder of power of attorney of the owner was compelled to write to the Joint Commissioner of Police, Head Quarter Lalbazar, Kolkata seeking direction upon the OC, Phoolbagan PS to lodge FIR and take necessary action in this matter vide letter dated 19.04.2013. But even after getting no relief, complainant again wrote a reminder to the Joint Commissioner of Police, Head Quarter, Lalbazar on 06.08.2013 giving reference of his previous letter and requested for direction upon OC, Phoolbagan PS to lodge immediate FIR and take necessary action.
That on the other side op no.1 also refused to lodge complain in absence of owner of the vehicle. So the owner of the vehicle came back to Kolkata and he personally appeared in the office of op no.1 to register the complaint and gave a written letter informing his change of address, though the complainant was registered being Claim No. OC-14-24011803-00000220 but the officer did not sign the copy of intimation letter and an intimation for missing of vehicle was already given by the proforma op no.2 to op no.1 through their marketing executive on 08.04.2013 which was duly received by him.
After happening above all, the insurer op no.1 deputed an investigator namely Sati Nath who carried out the investigation and took a set of all registration documents from complainant that were needed to him and submitted his report to the insurer op no.1. But op no.1 issued letters to complainant but complainant remained silent. But it is found by the complainant that those letters were issued at his previous address instead of new address which was given for communication by complainant as because he has changed his residence therefrom and due to mis communication, complainant did not receive any letter from the op no.1. So, complainant somehow obtained a photo copy letter dated 27.09.2013 of op no.1 which was endorsed to R.K. Investment and complainant likes to inform to the Ld. Forum that R.K. Investment has no any link with this matter from anywhereand complainant likes to request the op no.1 to let him know the reason for writing this letter to R.K. Investment.
Complainant approached in the office of op no.1 and met the claim officer Anupam Das who asked the complainant to submit smart card, permit, tax token, form no.28, 29, 30 and 35 of the vehicle together with Claim Satisfactory Discharged Voucher, Letter of Subrogation and Indemnity Bond which were to be given on the Court’s Stamp Paper for Rs. 200/- each duly signed and notified by the Notary Public without stating any settled claim amount.
Thereafter complainant applied before the RTA for vehicles related documents and as soon as he received from there and complainant submitted the same to the op no.1 the insurer on 09.12.2013 vide his letter dated 06.12.2013 except the claim satisfactory discharged voucher, letter of subrogation and indemnity bond and complainant requested the claim officer of op no.1 to assess the loss and settle the amount and disclosed the same so that he could mention the same on those documents and submitted the same. But claim officer denied to do this and asked complainant that the amount would be assessed letter and he will put the blank space of the documents at the time of payment and thinking suspicious activity of the claim officer, complainant could not submit those documents and waited to know the settled amount.
After receiving instructions from the Joint Commissioner Head Quarter, Lalbazar, the Sub-Inspector of Police A.C. Roy who is I.O. of this case visited the office of the op no.2 on 21.10.2013 and handed over a notice u/s. 91 of Cr. Pc demanding vehicle’s related papers for verification of ownership and as per I.O’s notice, all required papers were handed over by the op no.2 to S.I. of Police but no result is found as yet.
On receiving this letter from op no.1, complainant approached to claim officer of op no.1 and shown the receiving copy of documents, and thereafter the claim officer assured him to look into the matter and check the documents in their record and asked the complainant to come again to hear something new but in the last complainant became hopeless in spite of his several visit to op no.1 but he did not get any response in this regard and ultimately wrote a letter to op no.1 through his Advocate on 27.10.2014 and 27.03.2015 to op no.1 requesting to consider and settle the claim immediately but no result.
In the above premises for non-settlement of the said claim and also for negative attitude of the op and their negligent and deficient manner of service and motivated act on the part of ops, complainant has prayed for redressal.
On the other hand op no.1 by filing written statement submitted that no doubt complainant is insured under the op in respect of the said Auto Rickshaw and it is specifically mentioned that in case of theft where no bodily injury has been caused to the insured, it is incumbent upon complainant to inform the Police about the theft immediately that is within 24 hours, otherwise, valuable time would be lost in tracing the vehicle. Similarly, the insurer should also be informed within a day or two so that the insurer can verify as to whether any theft had taken place and also to take immediate steps to get the vehicle traced. The insurer can coordinate and cooperate with the police to trace the car and it is submitted that Delay in reporting to the op that about the theft of the Insured vehicle for 18 days, would be a violation of condition of the Policy as it deprives the insures of a valuable right to investigate as to the commission of the theft and to trace/help in tracing the vehicle.
In the present case in spite of sending several letters dated 05.08.2013, 07.09.2013, 27.09.2013 and 09.11.2013 requesting the complainant to submit the relevant documents, but complainant never responded to that and in this respect complainant has tried to make out the case that his address was changed and as such he did not receive any letter sent by this op no.1, but such change of address was never communicated to this op no.1 and no request was made for correction of recorded address in the policy too. But actually such story has been made out for the purpose of extending their delay and truch is that in respect of several letters and reminders, complainant never co-operated with this op and never submitted the relevant documents for which finding no other alternative but to repudiate the claim of complainant. So, there was no deficiency or negligence on the part of the op no.1.
Most interesting factor is that complainant filed a copy of letter along with complaint that means complainant was aware of every fact. Another fact is that in respect of the insured vehicle company’s liability can only arise if the registration of the said vehicle is valid on date of alleged loss. But the registration of vehicle was valid up to 30.01.2013 whereas the date of loss is on 08.04.2013 and in the instant case the registration of the said vehicle expired prior to the alleged date of theft and as such complainant is not entitled to get any relief and op no.1 is not liable to pay any claim in respect of alleged loss and in the above circumstances, this complaint should be dismissed.
Decision with reasons
On careful consideration of the complaint and written version and also the vital fact that the registration of the vehicle was valid up to 30.01.2013 and date of commission of theft in respect of the said vehicle is on 08.04.2013. In this regard complainant is very much silent and failed to produce any valid registration of the said vehicle as on the date of incident i.e. 08.04.2013 but it is proved that registration of the said vehicle was valid up to 30.01.2013 whereas the incident of theft was committed on 08.04.2013 on which date there was no valid registration and when the vehicle was without any registration, then it is the duty of the complainant to prove that owner of the vehicle applied for extension of registration as contemplated in the Motor Vehicle Act and mention extension period on the ground of specific reason but that has not been done.
So, in our view using a vehicle on the public road without any registration is not only an offence but also punishable offence u/s 192 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 but also a fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of Policy contract and there is nothing on the record that complainant applied for registration with the Registration Authority till the date of theft of the car in question and it had not been registered with the Registering Authority that is the car in question is being used without any valid registration certificate and when it was stolen, the car was being used by the complainant which is completely in violation of mandatory Provision of 139 of Motor Vehicle Act and in this regard Narinder Singh’s case (supra) is relied and by that judgement the Hon’ble Apex Court laid down the principle of the law, to the effect that if the vehicle was being used without registering certificate and damage to the same or loss thereof occurred, then the Insurance Company could legally and validly repudiate the claim of the insured in toto and at the same time relying upon the ruling reported in judgement passed in RP No.4235 of 2014 at Circuit Bench at U.T. Chandigarh dated 08.12.2014, we find that by that judgement, Hon’ble National Commission also confirmed that when Insured did not apply for registration or extension of registration with the concern authority, it is fault of the insured and for which as per Provision of law, he is not entitled to get any relief from the insurer.
In the light of the above observation and findings and also relying upon the judgement of Hon’ble National Commission and State Commission and further considering no valid registration as on the date of theft of the vehicle on 08.04.2013, complainant actually violated the terms and conditions of the policy and also violated the provision of section 139 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.
So, under any circumstances, complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for and repudiation is made by the op is found justified for which this complaint fails.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
That the complaint be and the same is dismissed on contest without any cost.
