Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/1305/2012

Surinder Kumar Gera S/o Lajpat Rai Gera - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chander Bhakshi - Opp.Party(s)

Amandeep Singh

29 Mar 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA   NAGAR

                                                                                              Complaint No. 1305  of  2012.

                                                                                              Date of institution: 18.12.2012

                                                                                              Date of decision: 29.03.2016

 

Surinder Kumar Gera aged 55 years son of Sh. Lajpat Rai Gera, resident of House No. 20, Shivpuri-B Colony, Near Rajan Hospital, Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  …Complainant.

                                    Versus

1. Chander Bakshi, Agent of Indusind Bank Ltd. & national Insurance Company Limited C/o Rohit Automobiles, Saharanpur Road, Yamuna Nagar.
2. National Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office: Near New Fountain Chowk, Yamuna Nagar, through its Branch Manager.
3. Indusind Bank Ltd. Near Telephone Exchange, Jagadhri Road, Yamuna Nagar through its Branch Manager.

 

                                                                                                                … Respondents.

 

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present: Sh. Amandeep Singh, Advocate, counsel for complainant. 

              None for Op No.1.   

              Sh. Rajiv Gupta, Advocate, counsel for OP No.2.

              None for OP No.3.

 

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant Surinder Kumar Gera has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 praying therein that respondents (hereinafter referred as OPs) be directed to pay the insured amount of Rs. 41985/- on account of theft of motorcycle alongwith compensation and litigation expenses.  

2.                     Brief facts of the present case are that complainant had got insured his motorcycle having temporary registration bearing No. HR-99-MJ-1530 for a sum of Rs. 41,985/- vide policy No. 35100731126200463936 having validity from 17.5.2012 to 16.5.2013. The said motorcycle was stolen on 28.06.2012 from Sudhir Hospital, Yamuna Nagar. The complainant immediately reported the matter to the Police Station City, Yamuna Nagar but the police officials told that they will register the FIR after few days as they will first of all search the vehicle and if the same will not be found then they will register the case. On 29.6.2012, the complainant intimated the matter to OP No.1 as the OP No.1 is the authorized agent of OP No.2. OP No.1 told the complainant that he will precede the claim case of complainant with OP No.2 and the complainant has no need to worry and the complainant will certainly get the claim in respect of the loss of motorcycle. Thereafter, the complainant contacted the police officials in respect of recovery of his stolen motorcycle, but the police officials averted him on one pretext or the other and lastly only after repeated visits and requests, the police of P.S. City Yamuna Nagar registered a case bearing No. 299 dated 6.7.2012 under section 379 IPC wherein they have categorically stated that the complainant has reported the matter on 28.6.2012. After getting the copy of aforesaid FIR, the complainant handed over the same to the OP No.1 and inquired about his claim in respect of loss of vehicle. On this, the OP No.1 assured the complainant that his claim will be settled soon positively but it was very astonished to the complainant when he received a repudiation letter No. 420402/3480 dated 15.12.2012 from OP No.2 on the ground of delay in intimation, delay in registration of FIR and non registration of motorcycle. As such, the reasons stated in their repudiation letter are absolutely illegal and the OP No.2 has illegally repudiated the claim of complainant. Hence, this complaint.  

3.                     Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed their written statement separately. OP No1 filed his written statement and denied all the facts mentioned in the complaint for want of knowledge and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

4.                     OP No.2 filed its written statement admitting the fact that the OP No.2 insurance Company has insured the motorcycle bearing Engine No. HA10EJC9E09037 w.e.f. 17.5.2012 to 16.05.2013. It is also wrong that the complainant reported the matter immediately to the police. No immediate intimation was given to the respondent company and the alleged intimation to Op No.1, if any, has nothing to do with the OP No.2. In fact the police was intimated in this case on 06.07.2012 and not on 28.06.2012 as alleged and this fact is duly corroborated by FIR No. 299 dated 06.07.2012 was registered with P.S. Yamuna Nagar. Further a belated intimation dated 12.07.2012 was given to Op No.2 by the complainant and on receipt of said intimation, the OP No.2 had desired the complainant to submit a claim form and to give necessary and desired documents for processing of claim. On processing of claim, it was found and observed that the alleged date of loss is 28.06.2012 whereas the police was intimated on 06.07.2012 and intimation to the Op No.2 was given on 12.07.2012 and both these facts are in utter violation of the policy condition No.1, according to which immediate intimation to the police and to the Op No.2 is to be given. Besides this, the motorcycle was purchased on 17.5.2012 but it was not got registered with Registering Authority (MV) within the period of one month from the date of its purchase and on the alleged dated of loss i.e. 28.06.2012. The motorcycle was unregistered vehicle which also amounts to violation of the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act. As such, the OP No.2 vide its registered letter dated 15.10.2012 legally and justifiably repudiated the claim of complainant.  So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2 and the claim has been rightly repudiated by the OP No.2 and prayer for dismissal of complaint.   

5.                     OP No.3 filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complainant has got no locus standi and cause of action to file and maintain the present complaint and on merit denied all the facts for want of knowledge and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

6..                    To prove his case, complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit as Annexure CW/A and documents such as Photo copy of insurance policy as Annexure C-1, Photo copy of untraceable report as Annexure C-2 and closed his evidence.  

7.                                 On the other hand, OPs No.1 & 3 failed to adduce any evidence, hence their evidence was closed by court order on 15.10.2015.

 8.                    Counsel for the OP No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Parveen Arora, Administrative Officer, NIC as Annexure RW2/A and documents such as Photo copy of claim intimation letter as Annexure R2/1, Photo copy of FIR as Annexure R2/2, Photo copy of claim form as Annexure R2/3, Photo copy of Temporary Registration Certificate as Annexure R2/4, Photo copy of claim repudiation letter dated 15.10.2012 as Annexure R2/5, Photo copy of Insurance policy alongwith terms and conditions as Annexure R2/6 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.2.

9.                     We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file minutely & carefully.  Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the averments made in the complaint and prayed for its acceptance whereas the counsel for the OP No.2 reiterated the averments made in the reply and prayed for its dismissal.

10.                   It is admitted fact that the motorcycle in question was having temporary registration No. HR-99-MJ-1530 which was valid for one month from the date of its purchase i.e. 17.5.2012 and was insured with the OP No.2 insurance company for a sum of Rs. 41985/- vide comprehensively insurance policy bearing No. 35100731126200463936 valid from 17.05.2012 to 16.05.2013.

11.                   The only plea of the OP No.2 insurance company is that firstly the FIR bearing No. 299 dated 6.7.2012 was lodged after a gap of period of 9 days i.e. on 6.7.2012 whereas the theft took place on 28.6.2012 and the OP No.2 Insurance Company was also intimated after a gap of 15 days i.e. on 12.7.2012. Hence, both these facts are in utter violation of the policy condition No.1 according to which immediate intimation to the police and to the OP No.2 Insurance Company is to be given. Besides this, it was found that motorcycle in question was purchased on 17.05.2012 but it was neither got registered with the Registering Authority within a period of one month from the date of its purchase nor till the date of loss i.e. 28.06.2012. Meaning thereby, the motorcycle in question was unregistered vehicle which also amounts to violation of the provision of the Motor Vehicle Act. So, the claim of the complainant has been rightly repudiated vide registered letter dated 15.10.2012. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2 and referred the case law titled as Narinder Singh Versus New India Assurance Company ltd. Civil Appeal No. 8463 of 2014 decided on 4.9.2014 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein it has been held that using a vehicle on the public road without any registration is not only an offence punishable under section 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act but also a fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of the policy contract. Further referred the case law titled as Royal Sundram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Kanwal Jeet Singh Gil, 2015 (3) CLT page 90 (N.C) and another case law titled as H.D.F.C. Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Bhagchand Saini, 1(2015) CPJ page 206 (N.C.) have weight as delay in reporting to the insurer about the theft would be violation of condition of the policy as it deprives insurer of a valuable right to investigate as to commission of theft and to help in tracing the vehicle. Moreover, in the policy, it has been specifically mentioned that claim for theft of the vehicle not payable if theft not reported to the company within 48 hours of its occurrence. The Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as Om Parkash vs. National Insurance company Ltd. 2012(III) CPJ Page 59 has observed that “ Insurance-theft of vehicle-Delay in intimation-Claim repudiated-alleged deficiency in service-District Forum allowed complaint- State Commission allowed appeal-Hence revision-terms and conditions of insurance policy are required to be strictly construed and no exception can be made on the ground of equity-Even delay of few days in not intimating Insurance Company about incident of theft is fatal-insured looses its right to be indemnified when he himself is not vigilant about his rights and his obligations in regarding to compliance of terms and conditions of policy-impugned order upheld”.

12.                    Further in the case titled as New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. Trilochan Jane First Appeal No. 321 of 2005 decided on 9.12.2009 it has been observed in the case of theft “where no bodily injury has been caused to the insured, it is incumbent upon the respondent to inform the police about the theft immediately, say within 24 hours, otherwise, valuable time would be lost in tracing the vehicle. Similarly, the insurer should also be informed within a day or two so that the insurer can verify as to whether any theft had taken place and also to take immediate steps to get the vehicle traced. The insurer can coordinate and cooperate with the police to trace the car. Delay in reporting to the insurer about the theft of the car for 9 days, would be a violation of condition of the policy as it deprives the insurers of a valuable right to investigate as to the commission of the theft and to trace/help in tracing the vehicle.”  

13.                   On the other hand, counsel for the complainant argued that the OP No.2 Insurance Company has repudiated the genuine claim of the complainant which is duly proved from the contents of FIR bearing No. 299 lodged on 6.7.2012 in the P.S. City Yamuna Nagar (Annexure R2/2) and further from the untraceable report issued by the Hon’ble Court of C.J.M. Yamuna Nagar (Annexure C-2). Lastly counsel for the complainant referred the case laws titled as Amalendu Sahoo vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 2010(1) CPC page 653 (S.C.), United India Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Bhupinder Singh, 2013(2) CPC (N.C.), B. Shantilal & Co. (deceased) & others versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Another, 2012(1) CPC page 55 (N.C) and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Bhupinder Singh, 2013(2) CPC Page 314 (N.C.) wherein it has been held that in case of theft of vehicle, breach of condition is not relevant-Claim should be settled on non standard basis by making 75% payment of the amount.

14                    After hearing both the parties, we are of the considered view that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2 Insurance Company as the complainant has totally failed to get registration of the motorcycle in question within a period of one month which is serious violation of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicle Act and Punishable under section 192 of the Motor Vehicle Act on the part of complainant. It is evident that complainant purchased the motorcycle in question on 17.05.2012 from Rohit Automobile vide bill No. 10465-C2SINV-0512-670 dated 17.05.2012 and theft took place on 28.06.2012 as per copy of FIR Annexure R2/2 and at the time of alleged theft the motorcycle in question was unregistered. We have gone through the contents of the complaint minutely and carefully but not a single word has been mentioned in the complaint that complainant could not get the registration number of the motorcycle in question due to which reason. Nothing has been brought on record by the complainant to show that before or after expiry of the temporary registration number, the complainant, owner of the motorcycle applied for permanent registration number as contemplated Under Section 39 of the Act or made any application for extension of period as temporary registration on the same ground of some special reasons and in the absence of any cogent evidence, we are of the view that the complainant/ insured used the vehicle contrary to the condition under section 39 of the Motor Vehicle Act which is re-produced here as under:

                        39. Necessity for registration- No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unregistered this vehicle in accordance with Chapter IV of M.V. Act 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.

                        And further as per section 43(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act, temporary registration number made in this section shall be valid only for a period not exceeding one month and shall not be renewable. The same view has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Narinder Singh vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. Civil Appeal No. 8463 of 2014 decided on 4.9.2014 which is fully applicable to the facts of the present case.

15.                   Further, it is evident from the letter of intimation Annexure R2/1 that complainant intimated the OP No.2 Insurance Company on 12.7.2012 i.e. after a gap of near about 15 days and lodged the FIR on 6.7.2012 i.e. after a gap of 9 days as the theft took place on 28.6.2012. So, there is also violation of condition No.1 of the Insurance Policy in question on the part of complainant himself.

16                    The law cited by the counsel for the complainant is not disputed but not helpful to the facts of the present case whereas the law referred by the counsel for the OPs titled as Narinder Singh vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. Civil Appeal No. 8463 of 2014 decided on 4.9.2014 and Royal Sundram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Kanwal Jeet Singh Gil, 2015 (3) CLT page 90 (N.C) and another case law titled as H.D.F.C. Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Bhagchand Saini, 1(2015) CPJ page 206 (N.C.) are fully applicable to the facts of the present case.

17                    In view of the above discussion, this Forum is of considered view that there is violation of terms and conditions of policy and OP No.2 has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant.  As such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs Hence, the present complaint is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court. 29.03.2016.

                                                                                                ( ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                           PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                                                          (S.C.SHARMA)

                                                                                           MEMBER