Punjab

Sangrur

CC/391/2016

Shiv Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bharti AXA General Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Amit Kumar Bhalla

06 Dec 2016

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                             

                                                                   Complaint no. 391                                                                                       

                                                                    Instituted on:  11.05.2016

                                                                     Decided on:    06.12.2016

 

Shiv Kumar  son of Birpal Singh resident of H.No.21, Near Railway Phatak, Ubhawal Road, Sangrur.

                                                …. Complainant.        

Versus

1.     Bharti AXA General Insurance Company Limited, SCO 350-351-352, Ist Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager.

2.     Sangrur Autos, Patiala Road, Village  Mangwal, Opposite Verka Milk Plant, Sangrur through its Manager.

 

      ….Opposite parties.

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:    Shri Amit Bhalla  Advocate                          

 

FOR OPP. PARTY NO.1              :     Shri G.S.Shergill, Advocate

 

FOR OPP. PARTY NO.3               :      Shri J.S.Sahni, Advocate       

 

 

Quorum

         

                    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

Sarita Garg, Member

                 

 

ORDER:  

 

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

 

1.             Shiv Kumar complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that he purchased a Bajaj Discover Motorcycle from the OP no.2  which was got insured from OP no.1 on 19.10.2015  and  premium of Rs.1819/- was paid to the OP no.1. On  22.10.2015  the said motorcycle was totally damaged due to an accident. No FIR was lodged as nobody was injured in the said accident. An intimation was given to the OP no.1 who appointed a surveyor. Thereafter the OP no.1 repudiated the claim of the complainant on false and vague grounds on the pretext that the motorcycle was driven by Shiv Kumar who has no valid driving license at that time whereas at the time of accident Jacky Kumar was driving the vehicle who is having valid and effective driving license. As such the OP no.1 wrongly repudiated the claim of the complainant. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:- 

i)      OPs be directed to make the claim amount o Rs.51000/- along with interest @18% per annum from the date of accident  i.e. 19.10.2015till realization,   

ii)     OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.25000/- as compensation   on account of mental agony, harassment,

iii)     OPs be directed to pay Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.             In reply filed by the OP no.1, preliminary objections on the grounds of maintainability, concealment of material facts and violation of terms and conditions have been taken up. It is submitted that  the vehicle was allegedly met with an accident on 22.10.2015 whereas  the vehicle was  got registered on 26.10.2015 and as such at the time of  alleged loss, the vehicle was not registered. Therefore  there is a violation of Section 39 of Motor Vehicle Act, which is reproduced  as under:-

Section 39:  Necessity for Registration:  No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of 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 vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled  and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner; the provided that nothing in this section shall  apply  to a motor vehicle in possession of a dealer subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government".

It is further submitted that  the vehicle was reported loss on 31-10-2015 whereas the date of loss was 22.10.2015 and as such there is a delay of 9 days  in intimating  the OP no.1.  During the survey the insured supplied the copy of tax deposit receipt, which was of dated 26.10.2015 whereas the loss was occurred on 22.10.2015. After perusing the reports, the OP No.1 repudiated the claim vide letter dated 10.02.2016 as per the terms and conditions of the policy.

3.             In reply filed by the OP no.2, it is admitted that the complainant purchased motorcycle from OP no.2 on 19.10.2015. It is submitted that once the complainant alleged that he got insured his vehicle  from OP no.1, therefore OP no.2 should not be impleaded as party to the complaint.  

4.             The complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-7 and closed evidence. On the other hand, OPs have tendered documents Ex.OP-1/1 to Ex.OP-1/5, Ex.OP-2/1 and closed evidence.

5.             From the perusal of documents placed on the file and after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant, we find that the OP no.1 has taken main ground of  repudiation of the claim of the complainant that during survey the insured supplied  the copy of tax deposit receipt which was of dated 26.10.2015  whereas the loss was  occurred  on 22.10.2015  as such there is  violation of  the terms and conditions of the policy as well as  statutory  provisions of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicle Act, as the vehicle was not registered at the time of alleged loss .Therefore, there is a violation of Section 39 of Motor Vehicle Act wherein it has been specifically mentioned that No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of 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 vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled  and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner; the provided that nothing in this section shall  apply  to a motor vehicle in possession of a dealer subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government.

6.             The Hon'ble National Commission in LalaRam  Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited & Others, IV (2016) CPJ 158 (NC) has held that it was bounden duty of the complainant not to drive vehicle unless or until he was carrying permanent registration. The complainant was not having the registration certificate  as well as permit  on day of accident and as such the repudiation of claim  is justified. We feel that in the instant case the position is similar  as the motorcycle was not registered at the time of accident.

7.             Accordingly, in view of the above discussion,  we find no merit in the present complaint and as such same is dismissed. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.                       

                Announced

                December 6, 2016

 

 

 

( Sarita Garg)                                           (Sukhpal Singh Gill)                                                                                      

Member                                                       President