BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Complaint No.:100 of 2013.
Date of Institution: 29.03.2013.
Date of Decision:.05.12.2016
Daya Nand, aged about 30 years, son of Sh. Rakhla Ram, resident of village Pur, Tehsil Bawan Khera, District Bhiwani.
….Complainant.
Versus
- Cholamandlam Ms General Insurance Co. Ltd., 2nd Floor, Dar House, 2 NSC Bose Road, Cehnnai, PIN 600 001, through its Principal Officer.
- Cholamandlam Ms General Insurance Co. Ltd. , S.C.O. 2463 – 2464, 2nd Floor, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh, PIN 160022, through its Manager/Authorized Signatory.
- Cholamandlam Investment & Finance Co. Ltd., Old Devsar Chungi Loharu Road, Shree Raj Complex, Bhiwani -127021.
…...Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 & 13 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT.
BEFORE: - Shri Rajesh Jindal, President
Mrs. Sudesh, Member
Present:- Shri Ravinder Bibyan, Advocate for complainant.
Shri Satender Ghangas, Advocate Proxy Counsel of
Shri A. Sardana, Advocate for OP no. 1 & 2.
Shri R.K. Verma, Advocate for OP no. 3.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
Brief facts of the present case are that he had purchased Motor Policy Schedule Cum Certificate of Insurance in respect of TATA MAGIC, (Public/Private Carrier) bearing Engine No. 10523 and chassis No. 04896 vide cover note No. 8225714, policy certificate No. 3362/00591004/000/00 for the period from 20.01.2011 to 19.01.2012 from the Ops and the paid requisite premium for the same amounting to Rs. 9,691/-. It is alleged that on 10.03.2011 aforesaid vehicle struck with a tree near village Jeetakheri and got damaged since no loss of life was involved in the said accident, hence FIR was not lodged. It is alleged that the complainant informed the Ops and they advised to get the vehicle repaired at any authorized service station and accordingly the complainant arrange carrying of said vehicle to the authorized dealer of Tata Motors at his own cost and incurred a sum of Rs. 55,544/-. It is alleged that the complainant submitted claim to the Ops and the Ops advised the complainant to submit some documents and registration certificate of the vehicle but registration certificate of said vehicle was awaited from registration authority and as such the RC could not be submitted at that time and the Ops close the case as “No Claim”. It is alleged that the vehicle was registered with Regional Transport Authority, Bhiwani which is valid up to 22.12.2026 and the complainant submitted all the documents but the Ops did not settle the claim. The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the respondents, he had to suffer mental agony, harassment and humiliation. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of respondents and as such he had to file the present complaint.
2. On appearance, OPs no. 1 & 2 filed written statement alleging therein that the complainant failed to submit the documents mentioned in the letter. It is submitted that on the receipt of the intimation about the damages caused to the vehicle of the complainant in the accident dated 10.03.2011 the respondent company deputed Sh. Jitender Kumar for survey the claim and the complainant was intimated in this regard vide letter dated 30.06.2011 with a request to submit the documents mentioned in the letter. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party no. 1 & 2 and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
3. OP No. 3 on appearance also filed separate written statement alleging therein that the loan agreement entered between the complainant and the Ops contains Arbitration Clause in Clause No. 29 of the Loan Agreement by which all disputes differences and claims have to be settled by reference to Arbitration only. It is submitted that the complainant failed to make the payment of the installments as per terms of agreement. It is submitted that the complainant did not intimate the answering respondent. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering respondent and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
4. In order to make out his case, the counsel for complainant has placed on record documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-7 alongwith supporting affidavit.
5. In reply thereto, the counsel for Ops has tendered into evidence documents Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-9.
6. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
7. Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint. He submitted that due to the accident on 10.03.2011 the vehicle in question was damaged and complainant spent Rs. 55,544/- on its repairing. The complainant submitted the required documents to the Ops for the settlement of his claim. The registration certificate of the vehicle could not be submitted by the complainant to the OP as the same was not issued till then by the registering authority. In support of his contention, the counsel for the complainant relied upon the following judgments:-
I Iffco Tokio General Ins. Co. Ltd. & another Versus Pratima Jha II (2012) CPJ 512 (NC).
II Bharti Axa General Insurance Company Limited Versus Venus I (2012) CPJ 2017 of Hon’ble Punjab State Commission, Chandigarh.
8. Learned counsels for the Ops no. 1, 2 & 3 reiterated the contents of their reply, respectively. The counsel for Ops no. 1 & 2 submitted that on the receipt of the intimation about the damage caused to the vehicle of the complainant in the accident dated 10.03.2011, the complainant was asked to submit the necessary documents but the complainant failed to submit the necessary documents despite repeated reminders of the OP. Hence the claim file of the complainant was closed as “No Claim” and the intimation of which was given to the complainant vide letter dated 22.07.2011. He further submitted that as per the registration certificate of the vehicle placed by the complainant on the file the vehicle in question was registered on 23.12.2011 by the concerned Registering Authority and the vehicle was not registered on the date of accident i.e. 10.03.2011. He submitted that the temporary registration certificate of the vehicle in question is dated 31.01.2011 and it was valid only for one month. Therefore, the company is not liable to pay any claim amount to the complainant.
9. We have perused the relevant material on the record. The main facts of the case are not in dispute. Admittedly, the vehicle in question was not registered on 10.03.2011 on the date of accident. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case of Narinder Singh (supra) held as under:-
Indisputably, a temporary registration was granted in respect of the vehicle in question, which had expired on 11.11.2006 and the alleged accident took place on 02.02.2006 when the vehicle was without any registration. Nothing has been brought on record by the appellant to show that before or after 11.01.2006, when the period of temporary registration expired, the appellant, owner of the vehicle either applied for permanent registration as contemplated under Section 39 of the Act or made any application for extension of period as temporary registration on the ground of some special reasons. In our view, therefore, 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 policy contract.
In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the complaint of the complainant is devoid of merits and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: 05.12.2016.
(Rajesh Jindal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Sudesh)
Member
