MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

1.       This is an appeal filed by the appellant/complainant, for enhancement of amount of compensation, against the order, dated 28.2.2011 passed  by  District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) in complaint case No. 521 of 2010 vide which, it allowed the complaint and directed the OP (now respondent) to pay, 75% of the total amount of claim, as assessed by the surveyor. It was further directed the OP shall pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation, within 30 days, failing which, to pay the amount alongwith penal interest @ 18% p.a.

2.         Briefly stated, the facts of the case are, that the complainant got his Chevrolet Cruize car bearing No. HR-99-SC- (T) 5088, insured with the OP Insurance Company vide Policy/Cover Note No.30194730 valid from 13.4.2010 to 12.4.2011 for an IDV of Rs.12,52,100/-.  It was stated that on 19.4.2010, the car met with an accident, near light point, at Patiala, when it was hit by a truck. The claim was lodged, which was settled by the OP through the repairer i.e. M/s Dynamic Motors, Chandigarh, being cashless service.  It was further stated that the vehicle was released by the workshop on 14.5.2010, after repairs, subject to testing and confirmation of the quality of the same done by the repairers.  However, on finding some discrepancies and shortcomings, the complainant again took the car to M/s Dynamic Motors, Chandigarh, for repair on 17.5.2010. It was further stated that after getting the repairs done, the car again met with an accident on 17.5.2010 at Chandigarh.  The OP was intimated about the loss and the claim form was submitted. The car was, however, repaired by M/s Dynamic Motors, Industrial Area, Chandigarh, and the Insurance Company deputed its surveyor, who conducted the survey. He assessed the loss and advised the repairers to proceed to repair the vehicle. It was further stated that on asking of the OP Insurance Company, the complainant gave certain clarifications vide letter dated 22.6.2010. It was further stated that on authorization from the OP, and its surveyor, the vehicle was got repaired from the authorized dealer and payment of Rs.48,405/- was made to it, by the complainant vide receipt No.3108 dated 31.5.2010.  The complainant completed all other formalities  to the satisfaction of the OP and its authorized representative but still, the claim was not paid, despite repeated requests by him.  It was further stated that the above said act of the OP, amounted to deficiency, in service, and indulgence into unfair trade practice. Hence, the complaint was filed.

3.         Reply was filed by the OP in which, the OP admitted that the car was insured with it. It was also admitted that claim regarding the same was lodged with the OP. It was stated that the claim was rightly repudiated by the OP, vide letter dated 2.7.2010, as at the time of verification of documents, it was found that the car was not registered with the concerned RTO, at the time of accident i.e. on 17.5.2010 and, as per the report of the surveyor, the temporary RC of the car expired on 12.5.2010. It was further stated that the accident occurred on 17.5.2010 and till then, neither the complainant got the car registered nor had applied for the same.  It was further stated that in view of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the complainant was not authorized to drive the vehicle without R.C. and, as such,  he was not entitled to get any claim.   It was further stated that there was no deficiency, in service nor indulgence into unfair trade practice on the part of OP. The remaining allegations were denied, being wrong. 

4.       The parties led evidence, in support of their case.

5.         The learned District Forum allowed the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the judgment.  

6.            Aggrieved by the order passed, by the learned District Forum, the appellant/complainant filed the instant appeal. 

7.         We have heard Sh.Nitin Gupta, Advocate, Counsel for the appellant/complainant, and, have perused the record, carefully.

8.       The learned Counsel for the appellant/complainant submitted that the learned District Forum erred in awarding only 75% of the claim amount on non-standard basis. He further submitted that though the temporary R.C. of the car had expired on 12.5.2010 and the accident occurred on 17.5.2010 yet due to unavoidable circumstances, the complainant could not apply for the permanent registration of the car, as he could not have taken the car to the Registring Authority for physical inspection, which was mandatory for getting the permanent registration of the vehicle. He further submitted that the learned District Forum, while rendering the order, did not take into consideration this fact.

9.       After giving thoughtful consideration, to the submission of the Counsel for the appellant, we are of the considered opinion that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. The car, in question, was admittedly insured with the OP, when it met with an accident on 17.5.2010. The temporary registration number had already, admittedly expired on 12.5.2010. It was not disputed by the complainant that as on 17.5.2010, the date of accident, the car in question was not registered with the RTO. Thus, driving the vehicle without being registered, amounted to violation of the provisions of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Violation of the provisions of Section 39 aforesaid, thus, had no direct nexus with the accident. The District Forum was thus right in holding that, total repudiation of claim by the OP was unjustified. The District Forum was right, in relying upon National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nitin Khandelwal, IV (2008) CPJ 1 (SC) for arriving at the conclusion that in such like cases, the claim should be settled on non-standard basis i.e. to the extent of 75%. The order of the District Forum, thus, does not suffer from illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission. 

10.     In view of the above discussion, the appeal, filed by the appellant/complainant, is dismissed being devoid of merit and the order passed by the learned District Forum is upheld. The parties are left to bear their own costs.

11.          Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. 

Pronounced.                                                                        

29^th April, 2011.