Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/19/45

Gurprit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Baljit Sharma Adv.

10 Jun 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 457 dated 21.01.2019.                                                        Date of decision: 10.06.2022.

 

Gurprit Singh son of Shri Mohinder Singh, R/o. House No.145, Village Gorsian Makhan, Tehsil Jagraon, District Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                              ..…Complainant 

•  

1. Cholamandlam MS General Insurance Company Limited, Registered & Head Office 2^nd Floor, Dare House, 2 NSC Bose Road, Channai, 600 001 through its General Manager.
2. Bhamra Tractor Company, Raikot Road, Jagraon, District Ludhiana through its Proprietor.
3. Tata Capital Financial Services Limited, Branch Office Feroze Gandhi Market  Ludhiana through its Branch Manager.                                                                                                              …..Opposite parties 

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection    Act.

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Baljeet Sharma, Advocate.

For OP1                         :         Sh. Vyom Bansal, Advocate.

For OP2 and OP3          :         Complaint against OP2 and OP3 not admitted                                             vide order dated 24.05.2019.

 

ORDER

PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

1.                In brief, the case of the complainant is that he purchased one Sonalika DL 750 III Model Tractor from OP2 for a sum of Rs.6,18,000/- vide bill No.21 dated 28.06.2016. At the time of purchase of the tractor, the complainant paid Rs.1,50,000/- in cash to OP2 which included a sum of Rs.23,000/- towards the registration charges and other expenses for preparation of registration certificate of the tractor. The said tractor was insured withOP1 vide policy valid from 16.06.2016 to 15.06.2017. A sum of Rs.14,285/- was paid as premium. On 13.08.2016, while the complainant was proceeding from his village to Bahadurgarh (Haryana), the tractor was forcibly snatched from him on pistol point by four persons who came in a car. The matter was reported to the police of Police Station Rajaund, District Kaithal, Haryana   and a case under Section 394 IPC read with section 25 of the Arms Act was registered vide FIR No.141 dated 14.08.2016. The complainant gave intimation regarding snatching of tractor to OP1 and OP3 who deputed Mr. Som Nath Mishra surveyor to investigate the loss. The complainant lodged a claim and submitted all the documents along with no traceable certificate but OP1 failed to pay the claim to the complainant. OP2 received a sum of Rs.23,000/-  from the complainant for registration of the tractor but failed to deliver the RC of the tractor to the complainant in time. This amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. In the end, it has been requested that the OPs be directed to pay a sum of Rs.6,18,000/- along with interest @18% per annum with compensation and litigation expenses of Rs.1,25,000/-.

2.                Complaint as against OP2 and OP3was  not admitted vide order dated 24.05.2019.

3.                The complaint has been resisted by the OP1. In the written statement filed on behalf of the OP1, it has been, inter alia, pleaded that on receipt of the claim in respect of the theft of the insured vehicle, it was registered and surveyor Sh. Som Nath Mishra was appointed to investigate the claim vide letter dated 19.08.2016. The complainant was asked to explain the delay in intimation of the theft to OP1 which constituted violation of condition No.1 and 9 of the policy. The investigator submitted his report that the vehicle was not registered with the Transport Department. Non-registration of the vehicle from RTA amounts to fundamental breach of policy terms and conditions. Even otherwise, non-registration of the vehicle is an offence under Section 192 of the Motor Vehicle Act. Therefore, the claim was repudiated vide letter dated 12.07.2018.  The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied as wrong and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.

4.                In evidence, the complainant submitted his affidavit as Ex. CA along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C9 and closed the evidence.

5.                On the other hand, learned counsel for OP1 tendered affidavit Ex. RA of Vidhi Passi, Assistant Manager Claims (Legal) of OP1 along with documents Ex. R1 to Ex. R6 and closed the evidence.

6.                We have gone through the record and heard arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties.

7.                During the course of arguments, the counsel for the complainant has argued that the repudiation of the claim on the ground that the vehicle was not registered is not sustainable in the eyes of law. In support of his arguments, the counsel for the complainant has relied upon United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sushil Kumar Godara in Revision Petition No.1984 of 2015 decided on 11.12.2020 by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi whereby it has been held that since the insurance company had received the insurance premium and there was no violation of any specific condition in the insurance policy, the insurance company is liable to indemnify the insured for the loss suffered by the insured. It was further held that though plying a vehicle on road without registration is a violation of provisions of Motor Vehicle Act, the competent authority to take action against a non-registered vehicle is the police and other Government authorities and the insurance company after accepting the premium, cannot escape from its liability and repudiate the claim on this technical ground.  

8.                Having considered the above contentions of the counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the case. However, the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in the cited case has been set aside by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in appeal decided on 30.09.2021 i.e. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sushil Kumar Godara in 2021 (4) RCR (Civil) 478 and it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India if on the date of theft, the vehicle had been driven without a valid registration, it amounts to clear violation of Section 39 and Section 192 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, the denial of claim is justified. In the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, it has to be held that OP1 was fully justified in repudiating the claim on the ground that the insured vehicle was being plied without getting it registered with concerned Regional Transport Authority which is not only violation of Section 39 and 192 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 but also amounts to fundamental breach of terms and conditions of the policy.  

9.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.  Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

10.              Due to rush of work and spread of COVID-19, the case could not be decided within statutory period.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:10.06.2022.

Gobind Ram.

Gurprit Singh Vs Cholamandalam GIC                          CC/19/45

Present:       Sh. Baljeet Sharma, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh. Vyom Bansal, Advocate for the OP1.

                   Complaint against OP2 and OP3 not admitted vide order dated                             24.05.2019.

 

                    Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.  Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:10.06.2022.

Gobind Ram.