Haryana

StateCommission

A/215/2016

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

BRIJ PAL SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

P.S.SAINI

05 Apr 2016

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      215 of 2016

Date of Institution:      14.03.2016

Date of Decision :       05.04.2016

 

United India Insurance Company Limited, Regional Office, SCO 123-124, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh through its duly constituted attorney Smt. Sunita Sharma, Deputy Manager.

                                      Appellant/Opposite Party

Versus

 

Brij Pal Singh s/o Sh. Karan Singh, Resident of Village and Post Office Samlehri, Tehsil Barara, District Ambala (Haryana).

                                      Respondent

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Present:               Shri P.S. Saini, Advocate for appellant.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

This appeal has been preferred against the order dated  January 28^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ambala (for short ‘the District Forum’) in Complaint No.318 of 2012.

2.      Brij Pal Singh-complainant (respondent herein) got his car bearing registration No.HR-54A-0535, insured with United India Insurance Company Limited (for short ‘the Insurance Company’) from August 20^th, 2010 to August 19^th, 2011. The Insured Declared Value (‘IDV’) of the car was Rs.5,36,750/-.  On November 14^th, 2010, the car met with an accident and was damaged. Information being given, the Insurance Company appointed surveyor who inspected the vehicle and assessed the loss at Rs.2,26,028.61. The complainant filed claim with the Insurance Company but it did not pay the benefits of insurance on the ground that on the date of accident, that is, November 14^th, 2010 the car was not registered with the Registering Authority. Since, the complainant did not get the car registered with the Registering Authority within 30 days from the date of its purchase, there was violation of the provisions of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicle Act. So, the Insurance Company was not liable to pay the benefits of Insurance. The car was got registered with the Registering Authority on November 25^th, 2010 by paying the late fee. The Registration Certificate was valid w.e.f. August 20^th, 2010 to August 19^th, 2025.

3.      Hence, the complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

4.      On appraisal of the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum allowed complaint and directed the Insurance Company as under:-

“(i)     To release to the complainant a sum of Rs.2,26,028.61P alongwith simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of complaint to till its realization after making statutory deductions, if any, as per compulsorily deductible clause as per terms of insurance policy.

(ii)      To pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation on account of harassment & mental agony.

(iii)     To pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- on account of punitive damage.

(iv)    And to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- for litigation charges including the counsel’s fee.

Further the award in question/directions issued above must be complied with by the OP within the stipulated period failing which all the awarded amounts shall attract simple interest @ 12% per annum for the period of default. So the complaint is allowed in above terms.”

5.      Indisputably, the car was insured with the Insurance Company and it was damaged during the subsistence of the Insurance Policy. It has also come on the record that the car was registered with the concerned Registering Authority on November 25^th, 2010 may be by paying the late fee and the Registration Certificate was issued which was valid from August 20^th, 2010 to August 19^th, 2025.

6.      The solitary submission of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company is that since the car was not registered with the Registering Authority within 30 days from the date of its purchase, therefore the Insurance Company was not liable to pay any compensation.

7.      Be that as it may, in compliance of the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act, if the car was registered by the Registering Authority by accepting the late fee from the complainant and the Registration Certificate, valid from August 20^th, 2010 to August 19^th, 2025 was issued; the compliance of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicle Act was done and consequently the Insurance Company is liable to pay the benefits of insurance to the complainant.

8.      Even otherwise, the law settled by the Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition No.626 2013 “M/s Aroma Paints Ltd. versus The New India Assurance Com. Ltd. and others” decided on August 7^th, 2013, on the issue in hand is as under:-

“11.   The counsel for the petitioner/complainant has cited the following three judgments of this Commission.

(1) RP No.52 of 2012, Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Pearls Buildwell Infrastructure Ltd. & Ors., headed by the Bench, Hon’ble Mr.Justice Ashok Bhan, decided on 27.02.2012, reported as II (2012) CPJ 102 (NC). 

 

(2)  In HDFC  Chubb General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ila Gupta& Ors.,  I (2007) CPJ 274 (NC), decided on 14.12.2006, in Para 2 of the judgment, it was observed :

 

          “As far as getting a Permanent Registration Number is concerned, admittedly, for want of a good Registration Number, more time was taken and the respondent got it registered later.  In the present case, non-registration of the Vehicle did not lead to this accident.  It was just a damage arising out of a car falling into the pothole.  It is not the case of the petitioner that they were not aware of the car being registered under the Temporary Registration Number, while the policy was issued.  An amount of Rs.81,476/- was paid as a premium for getting the car comprehensively insured.  As it was very much  within the knowledge of the  petitioner Insurance Company that the policy could not continue to be valid due to non-provision of the Permanent  Registration  Number, they  should have cancelled the policy in order to make the  respondent  take  another policy or revalidate  the same according  to  the  policy conditions or  whatever that was required to be done.  This has not been done by the petitioner Insurance Company”.

 

and (3) RP No. 497 of 2012,  The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Swami Devi Dayal, the Bench headed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhan, decided on 14.02.2012, wherein it was held :-

 

          “Petitioner being aggrieved, filed an appeal before the State Commission.  State Commission dismissed the appeal by observing as under:-

          It has not been disputed that complainant purchased new vehicle on 24.09.2007 and cover note was issued by insuring the new vehicle with engine number and chassis number.  The vehicle met with an accident on 02.11.2008.  The claim of the complainant was repudiated on the sole ground that the complainant failed to get the vehicle registered within the specified period of 30 days from the date of sale.  Contention was raised  that  the temporary registration was valid for 30 days, i.e., up to 23.10.2007 and District Forum observing that not getting vehicle registered was not a disability, disentitling the complainant of indemnification of charges for repair allowed the complaint.  Admittedly, the vehicle was registered with engine number and chassis number along with the name of owner.  Registration authority has registered the vehicle with permanent registration number HR-03-J-3077 on 18.01.2008 by compounding the delay.  Thus provision of MVA stood complied with.  When  the contract of insurance company  was  by  engine  number  and chassis number of the vehicle and the delay, if any, in getting the permanent registration, stood  condoned  by  the registration authority, OPs  admitting the factum of accident  and the damage, could not have repudiated the claim on the sole ground that vehicle was not permanently registered within the period of 30 days.  Hon’ble National Commission in similar situated case reported as HDFC Chubb General Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs. Ila Gupta& Ors., 1 (2007) CPJ 274, held as under :-  [already referred].

 

12.    Otherwise too, the whole gamut of the facts and circumstances leans on the side of the consumer.  First of all, this is not a condition laid down in the insurance policy.  If the complainant did not have the registration number, he 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, 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. 

13.    It is difficult to fathom as to why Section 192 can be made applicable under the circumstances.  The insurance company does not enjoin the powers of traffic police.  They cannot dismiss the claim under the guise of Section 192 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.  Section 192 of the said Act, pertains to the powers of the traffic police and the court.  It does not give any power to the insurance company to press this Section into service, while dismissing the claim of the claimant/ complainant.  Thirdly, it is mere negligence and in-action on the part of the complainant.  There is no evidence to show that he had an ulterior motive.  It is difficult to understand, why he should be deprived of the claim made by him, before the Insurance Company.  Except under Section 192, he has not committed any offence.  Negligence on his part, cannot be equated with mens rea. He did not obtain the Registration Certificate for his own detriment.  The insurance Company is not affected by the said negligence on his part.”

9.      The instant case is squarely covered by law settled in M/s Aroma Paints Ltd. versus The New India Assurance Com. Ltd. and another case (Supra).  Hence, no case for interference in the impugned order is made out.

10.    In view of the above, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

11.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced 05.04.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL