BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FEROZEPUR.
C.C. No. 174 of 2015 Date of Institution: 23.4.2015
Date of Decision: 24.9.2015
Harvinder Singh, Son of Sh. Kashmir Singh, Resident of #71, Model Town Near Sheehal Hospital, Ferozepur City, 90410-36222.
....... Complainant
Versus
- Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, having its Registered Head Office G.E. Plaza, Airport Road, Yerawada, Pune-411006.
- Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office at Mall Road, Ferozepur City, through its Branch Manager.
- Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, Claim Department, SCO-14, 4th Floor, Urban Estate, Sector-5, Panchkula.
........ Opposite party
Complaint under Section 12 of
the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
* * * * * *
C.C. No.174 of 2015 \\2//
PRESENT :
For the complainant : Sh. M.L. Chug, Advocate.
For the opposite parties : Sh. Ashwani Sharma, Advocate
QUORUM
S. Gurpartap Singh Brar, President
Mrs. Inderjeet Kaur, Member
ORDER
GURPARTAP SINGH BRAR, PRESIDENT:-
Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is the owner of Hyundai Excent Car bearing temporary registration No. PB-05AA-1821 which was insured with the opposite parties. The complainant got the car insured from the agent of the opposite parties at Moga Branch Office vide policy No.OG-15-1213-180100000562 effected from 27.6.2014 to 26.6.2015. Being comprehensive policy, the risks of accidental damage, theft etc. were covered under policy. The vehicle of the complainant met an accident on 9.11.2014, when the complainant was going to pay obeisance at Mata Chintpurni Mandir. The complainant immediately informed opposite party No.2 regarding accident,
C.C. No.174 of 2015 \\3//
who deputed surveyor to conduct spot survey, who submitted his report to opposite party No.2. The copy of the survey report was not supplied to the complainant despite request. It was orally told by the surveyor to the complainant that the loss of the complainant has been assessed @ Rs.3 lac. The complainant has been approaching opposite party N o.2, but opposite party No.2 was told every time that the claim will be paid very shortly. On 20.2.2015, the complainant received a letter from opposite party No.2, wherein it has been mentioned “at the material time of loss the Registration Certificate of the vehicle was not valid. “As per section 39 of Motor Vehicle Act, no person shall driver any motor vehicle and n o owner of a motor vehicle shall 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 this chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in prescribed manner”. “In addition to the above following documents also not submitted by your good self:-
- Claim form duly filled and signed by insured.
- Copy of FIR alongwith original for verification and transaction in English if FIR is in regional language.
C.C. No.174 of 2015 \\4//
- KYC form duly filled and signed by insured alongwith residence proof and photo ID proof.
- NEFT from duly filled and signed by insured along with cancelled cheque on which name and account no. should be pre-printed by the Bank passbook or bank account statement.
- Details of third party involved in the accident.
- MLC/MLR and injury details of driver and occupants.”
It has been further pleaded that the complainant went to the office of opposite party No.2 and submitted all the documents required for including the RC which was got issued to the complainant by the Registration Authority. Later on it has been come to the notice of the complainant that agent has submitted the application for registration of the vehicle very late. However, there is no nexus between non issuance of RC and accident. More so temporary registration certificate was already issued to the complainant. The complainant 4 days ago was told by opposite party No.2 that the claim of the complainant has been repudiated. The opposite parties were duty bound to pay the genuine claim of the complainant within a period of 3 months and opposite parties were bound to submit the survey report and to consider in full the genuine claim of
C.C. No.174 of 2015 \\5//
the complainant. Pleading deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, the complainant has prayed that the opposite party be directed to pay an amount of Rs.3 Lac assessed by surveyor; to pay Rs.20,000/- as taxi charges; to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental harassment and to pay Rs.15,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed their joint written reply to the complaint, In its written reply, the opposite parties took some preliminary objection interalia that there is no deficiency in rendering service on the part of the opposite parties at any point of time; that the complaint has suppressed material facts from this Forum and is not entitled to any relief; that the complainant was sent letters dated 3.2.2015, 11.2.2015 and 20.2.215 in which he was desired to send the documents and it was conveyed vide letter dated 20.2.2015 that after scrutinizing the documents submitted by him; that the complainant failed to respond the letters dated 20.2.2015 and in the absence of any response from the complainant the opposite parties was left with no option except to repudiate the claim of the complainant and the same was conveyed to him through letter dated 2.3.2015; the claim of the complainant is based upon the insurance policy; that the parties to the complaint
C.C. No.174 of 2015 \\6//
are bound by the terms and conditions of the policy; that the car in question was not having registration certificate and was on road in violation of the Section 39 of Motor Vehicles Act on the date of the alleged accident, so, the insurance company is not liable to pay the claim of the complainant. Other allegations of the complaint have been denied and dismissal of the complaint has been prayed for.
3. Ld. Counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence Ex. C-1 to Ex. C-3 and closed evidence on behalf of the complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit Ex. OP-1to3/1, documents Ex. OP-1to3/2 to Ex. OP-1to3/13 and closed evidence on behalf of opposite parties.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for parties and have also gone through the file.
5. The insurance of the vehicle admitted by the opposite parties. The accident of the vehicle also admitted by the opposite parties. The grievances of the complainant is that the opposite parties repudiated the claim of the complainant wrongly and illegally, on the ground that the complainant has
C.C. No.174 of 2015 \\7//
failed to give the reply of letter Ex. OP-1to3/6 sent by opposite party No.1 to the complainant on 20.2.2015. The version of the opposite parties is that the opposite parties sent letters dated 3.2.2015 Ex.OP-1to3/10, 11.2.2015 Ex. OP-1to3/8, and 20.2.2015 Ex.OP-1to3/6 in which the complainant was asked by the opposite parties to sent the relevant documents to the opposite parties for the settlement of the claim. The version of the opposite parties is that at the material time of loss the Registration Certificate of the vehicle was not valid. As per section 39 of Motor Vehicle Act, “No person shall driver any motor vehicle and n o owner of a motor vehicle shall 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 this chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in prescribed manner”. It has been pleaded in the para No.2 of the preliminary objection of the written reply that it was also conveyed to the complainant that you have not been submitted the following documents to the opposite parties
- Claim form duly filled and signed by insured.
C.C. No.174 of 2015 \\8//
- Copy of FIR alongwith original for verification and transaction in English if FIR is in regional language.
- KYC form duly filled and signed by insured alongwith residence proof and photo ID proof.
- NEFT from duly filled and signed by insured along with cancelled cheque on which name and account no. should be pre-printed by the Bank passbook or bank account statement.
- Details of third party involved in the accident.
- MLC/MLR and injury details of driver and occupants.”
6. The complainant failed to respond the letters dated 20.2.2015 and in the absence of any response from the complainant the opposite parties was left with no option except to repudiate the claim and the same was conveyed to him through letter dated 2.3.2015. The version of the complainant is that he received a letter dated 20.2.2015 Ex.OP-1to3/6 from the opposite party No.2 and the complainant went to the office of opposite party No.2 and submitted all the documents required for including the RC which was got issued to the complainant by the Registration Authority. The complainant pleaded in the para No.5 of the complaint is that the complainant contacted some agent in the DTO
C.C. No.174 of 2015 \\9//
Office, who assured the complainant that RC has been applied. But later on it was come into the notice of the complainant that application filed by the agent for registration certificate was submitted very late. The complainant has placed on file copy of affidavit Ex. C-1 in support of his version. From the pleading and evidence of the complainant it is proved that the complainant applied for the registration certificate with the Registration Authority. The complainant also pleaded that later on it was come into the notice of the complainant that application filed by the agent for registration certificate was submitted very late. The counsel of the complainant contended that there is no negligence on the part of the complainant for applying the registration certificate. In the circular No. HO/MTD/OD/CIR No.10/IBD:ADMN:268, the fact of non registration vehicle on OD claims under Motor Insurance Policies is reproduced:-
“As you are aware, the issue of admissibility of a claim in respect of a vehicle lost/damaged at a time when the vehicle was being driven without any valid registration, as contemplated under section 39 and Section 43 of the Motor Vehicles Act, has been a subject matter of
C.C. No.174 of 2015 \\10//
debate in the past in the wake of various orders of NCDRC and judgments from the Apex Courts touching this aspect from time to time.
In the latest judgment on the subject delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on 4thy September, 2014, in the matter between the appellant Narinder Singh Vs. respondent New India Assurance Company Limited in Civil appeal No.8463 of 2014, arising out of SLP (Civil) No.26303 of 2013, the Hon’ble Division Bench had dismissed the appeal filed by the insured, expressing their view that, “Using a vehicle on the public road without any registration is not only an offence punishable under section 192 of MV Act but also a fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of policy contract.” Accordingly, some GIPSA Member companies had issued circulars stating
C.C. No.174 of 2015 \\11//
that, Motor OD Claims for vehicles not registered with RTO, at the time of accident, are not admissible. However, these companies have been receiving representations from their operating offices and insured with different views regarding admissibility of such claims against the backdrop of the court order with the request to re-visit the issue. Some of these representations also made out a case in favor of the insured in circumstances under which the insured could not be blamed for the lack of registration at the time of loss of/damage to the vehicle. It was also reported that most of the private insurers are not straightaway rejecting the claims in all cases of non registration of vehicles at the material time of occurrence of the loss/ damage to the vehicle, and are deciding such cases on individual merit basis. In the background, and the issue affecting the
C.C. No.174 of 2015 \\12//
public at large, the matter was deliberated at length amongst the GMs (Motor) of the four GIPSA member companies at GIPSA level on 24th February, 2015 for discussing the finer points involved in the issue and arrive at a common understanding on treatment of such claims.
It was, interalia, observed in the said meeting that lack of registration cannot always be attributed to the insured, as there could be circumstances beyond the control of the insured leading to such lack of registration. For example, the insured might have paid the charges towards registration fee either at the RTO or even at the dealers point but the registration certificate could be pending/in process at the time of loss of /damage to the vehicle leading to a claim with insurer. In fact,
C.C. No.174 of 2015 \\13//
it was noted that even the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in its aforesaid judgment has observed in para 14, as under:-
“Nothing has been brought on record by the appellant to show that before or after 11.1.2006, when the period of temporary registration expired, the appellant, owner of vehicle either applied for permanent registration as contemplated under section 39 of the Act or made any application for extension of period as temporary registration on the ground of some special reasons”.
Following the spirit of the Hon’ble Supreme Court to look into the specific reasons before taking a decision, it was also felt that there could also be instances where, at the time of the accident to the vehicle, even the registration fee
C.C. No.174 of 2015 \\14//
and Road Tax might not have been deposited by the insured, either with the RTO or with the dealer, but the facts and circumstances of the case point out that there were genuine reasons for his failure to even deposit the registration fee and Road Tax before the accident taking place, and therefore, penalizing the insured by an outright repudiation of the claim solely on the ground of lack of registration, without going into the reasons for the same, could be too harsh a penalty upon him.
At the same time, requirement of registration of the vehicle before its use at a public place being statutory in nature, it cannot be altogether ignored while considering an insurance claim on such a vehicle.
C.C. No.174 of 2015 \\15//
Keeping in view the totality of situation and striking a fair balance between the interests of various stake-holders, in the spirit of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, therefore, the GMs (Motor) decided to treat claims on Motor Vehicles meeting with accident at a time when there was no valid registration on the vehicle in the following manner:-
In cases where the material on record available show that the insured had deposited the requisite registration fee and road tax on the vehicle either with the RTO or with the dealer/ sub-dealer, from where the vehicle was purchased. Before the vehicle meets with an accident, while the registration is still in process/ pending after such deposit of registration fee and road tax claims arising out
C.C. No.174 of 2015 \\16//
of such an accident may be settled on standard basis, subject to submission of the RC Book by the insured.
In cases where the insured had not deposited the requisite registration fee and road tax on the vehicle either with the RTO or with the dealer4/sub-dealer, from where the vehicle was purchased, before the vehicle meets with an accident, but the facts and circumstances of the case do point out that there were genuine reasons for his failure to even deposit the registration fee and road tax before the accident taking place, such cases could be settled on non-standard basis (not exceeding 75% of the normally admissible amount of the subject claim) by the Competent Authority as provided under the Financial Standing Orders of the Company for the time being in force, taking
C.C. No.174 of 2015 \\17//
into account the overall facts and circumstance of the case, subject to submission of the RC Book by the insured.
In cases where the insured had neither deposited the requisite registration fee and road tax on the vehicle either with the RTO or with the dealer/ Sub-dealer, from where the vehicle was purchased, before the vehicle meets with an accident, nor there were genuine reasons for his failure to even deposit the registration fee and road tax before the accident taking place, such claims should be repudiated in the normal course by the usual Competent Authority. “
7. The complainant has specific pleaded in the complaint that he applied for the registration certificate of the vehicle with the Registration Authority. The complainant has placed on file copy of registration certificate which was issued on 22.11.2014 and the accident took placed 9.11.2014. In the
C.C. No.174 of 2015 \\18//
present complaint, the complainant pleaded in the para No.5 of the complaint is that the complainant contacted some agent in the DTO Office, who assured the complainant that RC has been applied. But later on it was revealed that the application was submitted very late. The version of the complainant is fully supported with his affidavit i.e. Ex. C-1. In the para No.2 of the notification, it is mentioned that:
“In cases where the insured had not deposited the requisite registration fee and road tax on the vehicle either with the RTO or with the dealer4/sub-dealer, from where the vehicle was purchased, before the vehicle meets with an accident, but the facts and circumstances of the case do point out that there were genuine reasons for his failure to even deposit the registration fee and road tax before the accident taking place, such cases could be settled on non-standard basis (not exceeding 75% of the normally admissible amount of the subject
C.C. No.174 of 2015 \\19//
claim) by the Competent Authority as provided under the Financial Standing Orders of the Company for the time being in force, taking into account the overall facts and circumstance of the case, subject to submission of the RC Book by the insured. “
8. The vehicle of the complainant met with an accident on 9.11.2014 and registration certificate Ex. C-3 was prepared on 21.11.2014 after 12 days of the accident. It means that the registration of the vehicle was in process when the vehicle met with an accident. From the pleading and evidence of the complainant it is proved that there is genuine reason for not obtaining the Registration Certificate at the time of accident by the complainant. This condition was not mentioned in the insurance policy that if the complainant did not have the registration number, the complainant is liable to be punished Under Section 192, which provides that, whosoever drives a motor vehicle, or causes or allows a motor vehicle, to be used in contravention of the provisions of Section 39, shall be punishable for the first offence, with a fine, which may extend to five thousand rupees, but shall not be less than two thousand rupees,
C.C. No.174 of 2015 \\20//
for a second or subsequent offence, with imprisonment, which may extend to one year or with fine, which may extend to ten thousand rupees, but shall not be less than five thousand rupees or with both. The Insurance Company does not enjoin the power of traffic police. They cannot dismiss the claim under the guise of Section 192 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It is mere negligence and in action on the part of the complainant. The Insurance Company is not affected by the said negligence on his part.
9. In our view, claim of the complainant cannot be repudiated on the ground that the vehicle of the complainant was not registered with the Registration Authority at the time of accident. If the vehicle of the complainant was not registered with the Registration Authority, even then complainant is entitled to receive the claim of the vehicle on sub-standard basis. Reliance can be made in M/s. Aroma Paints Ltd. V. The New India Assurance Com. Ltd., III(2013) CPJ635(NC). The Surveyor assessed the loss of vehicle was Rs.1,22,494/- as mentioned in Ex. OP-1to3/11. The complainant is entitle to receive 75% claim of the vehicle on sub-standard basis.
C.C. No.174 of 2015 \\21//
10. In view of what has been discussed above, this complaint is accepted and the opposite parties are directed to pay the sum of Rs.91,871/-. Further the opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs.7000/- as compensation for mental harassment and Rs.3500/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. This order is directed to be complied with by the opposite parties jointly and severally within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced (Gurpartap Singh Brar)
24.9.2015 President
(Inderjeet Kaur) Member
