Punjab

StateCommission

FA/12/393

M/s M.S.Agro Industries - Complainant(s)

Versus

Cholamandlam MS General Insurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sham Lal Bhalla

17 Aug 2015

ORDER

                                                               FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH

 

STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION,  PUNJAB

          SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH

                                     

                   First Appeal No.393 of 2012

 

 

                                                          Date of Institution: 02.04.2012    

                                                         Date of Decision:  17.08.2015

 

 

M/s M.S Agro Industries, Opposite Anaj Mandi Gate, Barra (Sirhind) Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib through its Proprietor Amit Kapila son of Inderjit Kapila.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             …..Appellant/Complainant                                              

                                      Versus

 

Cholamandlam MS General Insurance Company Ltd., SCO 2463-64, 2nd Floor, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh through its Manager/Authorized Signatory.

                                                                                                                     ……..Respondent/Opposite Party

 

First Appeal against order dated 25.01.2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mohali

Quorum:-

 

          Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.

          Shri. Harcharan Singh Guram, Member

 

 

Present:-

 

          For the appellant                      : None  

          For the respondent                  : Sh.Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 

J.S KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER :-

         

          The appellant of this appeal (the complainant in the complaint) has directed this appeal against the respondent (the opposite party in the complaint), challenging order dated 25.01.2012 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Mohali, dismissing the complaint of the complainant. The instant appeal has been preferred by the complainant now appellant in this appeal.

2.      The complainant M/s Agro Industries has filed this complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the OP on the averments that it obtained insurance policy of vehicle Mahindra Pick UP Jeep bearing Regd. No.PB-23J-5834, Chasis No.2GGAAIG49244 and Engine No.GGAIG61026 from OP against premium of Rs.10,594/-. The policy was valid for the period of 09.08.2010 to 08.08.2011. The above vehicle met with an accident on 05.12.2010 near Banur Tehsil and District Mohali and DDR No.15 dated 05.12.2010 was recorded at P.S Banur about it. The OPs assured the complainant that repair expenses of the vehicle would be paid after completion of repair. Some of the repair expenses were required to be paid by Raj Vehicles, which were to be paid during repair work, but OP had not done it on time. The complainant paid the amount, vide receipt no.6287 dated 31.12.2010. The repair expenses of the said vehicle came to Rs.1,43,352.60, which was prepared by Raj Vehicles Pvt. Ltd, vide invoice no.1010 dated 01.12.2011. The OP had not paid the insurance claim amount to the complainant despite several requests in this regard. Vide letter dated 03.03.2011, the OP demanded the registration certificate of the vehicle. The complainant sent registration certificate of the vehicle to OP, vide letter dated 01.04.2011 posted on 02.04.2011. OP vide letter dated 27.04.2011 repudiated the claim of the complainant on false excuse that vehicle was used for commercial use. Legal notice dated 08.07.2011 was served upon OP, but to no effect. The complainant has filed the present complaint directing the OP to pay insurance claim of Rs. 1,43,352.60 along with interest, besides compensation of Rs.1 lac for mental harassment and Rs.15,000/- as costs of litigation.

3.      Upon notice, OP appeared and filed written statement and contested the complaint of the complainant. It was admitted by OP in written reply that vehicle of complainant met with an accident on 05.12.2010.  The temporary RC given to the complainant was valid up to 08.09.2010 only and complainant paid the tax on 01.02.2011. The vehicle was being driven in utter violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy and the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act i.e. the vehicle was being driven without a fitness certificate at the time of accident. The complainant got his vehicle repaired from Raj Vehicles Pvt. Ltd Patiala of his own free will and OP never asked the complainant to get it repaired from the said repairer. It has admitted that on receipt of intimation regarding accident, the surveyor was appointed, who assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.1,01,869/-.  Other averments of the complaint were vehemently denied by OP and OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

4.      The complainant tendered in evidence, his affidavit of AMit Kapila S/o Inderjit Kapila c/o M/s Agro Industries /complainant Ex.CW-1/1 along with copies of the documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-9 and Ex.C-9/1 to Ex.C-9/4. As against it OP tendered in evidence, the affidavit of Rajesh Kumar Arora Ex.RW-1/1 along with copies of the documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-8.  On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum, Mohali dismissed the complaint of the complainant by virtue of order dated 25.01.2012. Dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum Mohali, the complainant now appellant has preferred this appeal against the same.

5.      We have heard learned counsel for the respondent as none appeared for the appellant at the time of final arguments of this appeal. We proceed to dispose of the case on its merits with the aid of evidence on the record. We have examined the pleadings of the parties on the record. Ex.C-1 is copy of registration certificate of the vehicle. Ex.C-2 is copy of the insurance policy. Ex.C-3 is copy of DDR about this accident. Ex.C-4 is copy of driving license of Sukhdev Singh. Ex.C-5 is retail invoice regarding repair expenses of the vehicle prepared by Raj Vehicles Pvt. Ltd to the extent of Rs.1,43,352.60. Ex.C-6 is document sent to complainant demanding the supply of the documents by OP. We have also examined the document Ex.C-7 dated 1.04.2011. Ex.C-8 is letter dated 27.04.2011 addressed to complainant by OP. Ex.C-9 is legal notice. Ex.C-9/1 to Ex.C-9/4 are postal receipts. In rebuttal of this evidence, OP tendered in evidence affidavit of Rajesh Kumar Arora Authorized Signatory of Cholamandalam MS General Insurance/OP Ex.RW-1/1. Ex.R-1 is copy of insurance policy. Ex.R-1/1 is Standard Form for Commercial Vehicles Package Policy. Ex.R-2 is copy of Survey Report. Ex.R-3 is letter sent to complainant by Surveyor Er.S.P Singh. Ex.R-4 is the letter-demanding supply of the documents. Ex.R-5 is Temporary Registration Certificate of the Vehicle. Ex.R-6 is registration certificate. Ex.R-7 is certificate of fitness. Ex.R-8 is letter dated 27.04.2011.

6.      The only point raised for adjudication by counsel for respondent in this appeal is that vehicle in question was not registered at the time of accident and as such, it is fundamental breach of terms and conditions of the policy. As per pleaded case of the complainant, the accident took place on 05.12.2010 and DDR No.15 dated 05.12.2010 was also lodged about this accident with the police, as discussed above. We have considered the point, as to whether on 05.12.2010, the vehicle was registered with the Registering Authority or not. The temporary registration certificate of vehicle Ex.R-5 is on the record, it has proved that vehicle was temporarily registered from 09.08.2010 to 08.08.2011 with the Registering Authroity. Vide registration certificate Ex.R-6, tax was paid on 30.06.2011. Correspondence regarding registration record has been brought on record by the complainant Ex.C-1, it is dated 30.09.2011. The reliance of complainant is upon law laid down in HDFC Chubb General Insurance Company Vs. ILA Gupta and Ors, reported in 1(2007) CPJ 274 (NC). On the other hand, law laid down by Apex Court would apply even on the National Commission under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, hence, this authority would not advance the case of the appellant. There is no evidence adduced on record by the complainant that on the date of accident on 05.12.2010, the vehicle was registered with the Registering Authority. The temporary registration certificate had already come to an end on the date of accident 05.12.2010. The matter is not res integra. The Apex Court has examined this point in "Narinder Singh Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Ors." 2014 CPJ-11/12 and held that on the date of accident of vehicle, the temporary registration number of the vehicle had expired on 08.09.2010. The complainant neither applied for permanent registration of the vehicle, as contemplated under Section 39 of M.V Act nor made any application for extension of time, as temporary registration certificate already expired. The Apex Court has held that non-registration of vehicle and plying it on the public place in that matter is not only an offence punishable under Section 192 of the M.V Act, but is also fundamental breach of terms and conditions of the policy and hence the complainant is not entitled to any insurance claim. The law laid down by Apex Court has binding force throughout the country, over all the Judicial or Quasi Judicial Authorities and Tribunal under Article 141 of Constitution of India. The District Forum has also rejected the case of the complainant on the ground that the complainant failed to prove that he had obtained valid registration certificate of the above vehicle on the date of accident i.e. 05.12.2010. Non-registration of vehicle is fundamental breach of terms and conditions of the policy. The order of the District Forum is, thus, without any fault and the same is hereby affirmed in this appeal.

7.      As a result of our above discussion, we affirm the order of the District Forum Mohali dated 25.01.2012, under challenge in this case in dismissing the complaint of the complainant and resultantly the appeal filed by the appellant/complainant is ordered to be dismissed.

8.      Arguments in this appeal were heard on 14.08.2015 and the order was reserved. Copies of the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.

9.      The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.

 

                                                                          (J. S. KLAR)

                                                             PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

                       

                                                         

                                                          (HARCHARAN SINGH GURAM)

                                                                             MEMBER

 

August 17,  2015.                                                          

(ravi)