Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/15/2020

Suman Pandey - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Rakesh K. Kaundal

20 Feb 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/15/2020
Date of Institution	:	9.1.2020
Date of Decision	:	20.2.2023

 

Suman Pandey Age 32 Yrs. S/o Sh. Ramakant Pandey R/o House No. 378, Mauli Jagran, Chandigarh.  

… Complainant

V E R S U S

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. SCO 156-159, 2^nd floor, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh 160009.

 .  … Opposite Party

 

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY		Sh. Rakesh K. Kaundal, counsel for complainant.
		Sh. Rajesh Verma, counsel for OP.

Per Suresh Kumar Sardana, Member

• Briefly stated, the complainant got his E-rickshaw insured with OP for the period from 17.10.2018 to 16.10.2019 after paying premium of Rs.7376/- with IDV of Rs.1,06,400/-. Due to some battery issue with of the vehicle  it remained lying with the agency and consumed some time and thereafter due to deaths at the native place of the complainant the vehicle could not be registered. Since the vehicle was not registered therefore, the same was lying idle at the house of  the complainant’s sister in locked condition. On 3.7.2019 when the complainant was not at home the said vehicle was stolen and a FIR  of theft lodged with the police station concerned. Since the complainant was busy in search of the vehicle therefore, he could not intimate the OP regarding the theft and the same was intimated after waiting of 5 days. Thereafter the complainant lodged claim  However, the complainant received reminder dated 29.8.2019 and 5.9.2019 from the OP to reply within seven days on the issues  of non-registration of the vehicle .  The complainant vide reply dated 1.10.2019 explained the reasons to the OP for non-registration of the vehicle and requested for clearing the claim. But till date the OP have neither repudiated the claim nor considered the reply of the complainant. Alleging the aforesaid act of Opposite Parties deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part, this complaint has been filed. 
• The Opposite  party while admitting the factual matrix of the case stated that after receipt of claim on 8.7.2019 of the alleged theft of the vehicle in question on 3.7.2019 the matter was referred to the investigator to investigate and as per information gathered the complainant who purchased the vehicle in question on 14.10.2018  had not applied for permanent registration of the e-rickshaw and has not paid the road tax and on the date of theft the vehicle was not having permanent registration number issued by the registering authority and the validity of temporary number was already expired on 23.11.2018, thus there was fundamental breach of provisions of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicle Act. It is averred that the  explanation of the complainant for non-registration of the vehicle was not found correct and as such he was intimated that the claim has already been repudiated vide letter dated 26.9.2019 and the decision of the OP shall remain same. It is averred that there is no deficiency on the part of the OP. All other allegations made in the complaint has been  denied being wrong.
• Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
• Contesting parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
• We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and gone through the record of the case.
• The main grievance of the complainant is that inspite of having valid insurance cover of the vehicle, the legitimate insurance claim was not paid by the OP after the theft of vehicle.
• On perusal of records it is observed that the vehicle in question was having a temporary RC valid till 23.11.2018. It is also observed that the complainant did not apply for the permanent RC, thereafter and the vehicle was stolen on 3.7.2019 i.e. after 7 months of expiry of temporary RC. Hence, we are of the view that the OP has rightly not paid the claim of the complainant, as the vehicle was not having the valid RC on the date of theft nor had applied for it as on the date of theft of vehicle and hence, there is a fundamental breach of Section 39 of the Motor vehicle Act 1988.
• Thus, the complainant is himself at fault by not obtaining the valid RC within 30 days from the date of purchase of vehicle.   In United  India  Insurance  Co.  Ltd. vs  Sushil  Kumar Godara decided on 30 September, 2021 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:-

“In the present case, the temporary registration of the respondent’s vehicle had expired on 28-07-2011. Not only was the vehicle driven, but also taken to another city, where it was stationed overnight in a place other than the respondent’s premises. There is nothing on record to suggest that the respondent had applied for registration or that he was awaiting registration. In these circumstances, the ratio of Narinder Singh (supra) applies, in the opinion of this court. That Narinder Singh (supra) was in the context of an accident, is immaterial. Despite this, the respondent plied his vehicle and took it to Jodhpur, where the theft took place. It is of no consequence, that the car was not plying on the road, when it was stolen; the material fact is that concededly, it was driven to the place from where it was stolen, after the expiry of temporary registration. But for its theft, the respondent would have driven back the vehicle. What is important is this Court’s opinion of the law, that when an insurable incident that potentially results in liability occurs, there should be no fundamental breach of the conditions contained in the contract of insurance. Therefore, on the date of theft, the vehicle had been driven/used without a valid registration, amounting to a clear violation of Sections 39 and 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 19886. This results in a fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of the policy, as held by this Court in Narinder Singh (supra), entitling the insurer to repudiate the policy”.

The principle of law laid down in the aforesaid case by the Hon’ble Apex court is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. Thus, no case is made out against the OPs and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

•  In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
• Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.