CONSUMER CASE NO:- 13/2021
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
Briefly stated complainant’s case is that complainant Ratanlal Goala purchased from M/S Surana Motors(P) Ltd. , Silchar a new vehicle- Make : Tata Motor, Model Tata- 407, Tipper bearing temporary registration No.-AS-11/ TC-35 vide Engine no.- 4SPCR11FRY631469 & Chasis No.- MAT505243J8F14476. The vehicle was insured with the Opposite Party New India Assurance Company Ltd. on the day of purchase vide policy No.—12220031181150054702 valid from 15/09/2018 to 14/09/2019 and the assured sum of the vehicle was Rs. 11,27,455/- . The complainant is an unemployed person and he purchased the vehicle for commercial purpose to maintain his livelihood. It is stated that about a month prior to taking delivery of the vehicle the father of the complainant was diagnosed cancer and he was very busy in the tratment of his father. In the meantime his booked vehicle reached the dealer’s showroom and they were constantly keeping pressure on the complainant for taking delivery of the vehicle. Though the complainant took delivery of the vehicle on 15/09/2018 but due to financial crunch he could not manage the requisite money for registration of the vehicle. After taking delivery of the vehicle the complainant kept the same parked in his residential campus under proper lock and key taking sufficient precaution. He also did not bring the vehicle on road. On the other hand, he remained busy with the treatment of his father and was facing acute financial hardship. He was also in the belief that the temporary registration was valid for one year. In the meantime, it is stated that, the said vehicle was stolen away by some unknown miscreants from the residential campus of the complainant. Thereafter an FIR was lodged and Sichar P.S. case No.-3801/2018 U/S 379 IPC was registered. The complainant intimated the matter of theft of the vehicle to the O.P. Insurance Company and also submitted claim form. The Insurance Company appointed their panelled Investigator who investigated the matter. On the other hand Police could not recover the stolen vehicle and failed to identify the accused and lastly submitted Final Report. But ultimately the Insurance Company repudiated the claim of the complainant. According to the complainant , he did not violate any provision of the Act and the O.P. most illegally repudiated the claim without any lawful cause and reason. The complainant has, therefore, prayed for passing an award of Rs.11,27,455/- beng the principal assured amount, an award of Rs. 3,00,000/- being the compensation for disservice, harassment, mental agony & pain and also cost of the case etc.
The O.P. Insurance Company filed written statement stating, interalia, that there is no cause of action of the complaint, that the case is bad for defect of parties , that the claim is barred by limitation etc. It is stated by the O.P. that the complainant purchased a TATA SK 407 Tipper on 15/09/2018 under TMFL Finance Limited. The vehicle was duly insured with the O.P. Insurance Company vide policy no.12220031181150054702 valid from 15/09/2018 to 14/09/2019. The said vehicle was not registered with the Registering authority and was lying at the residential campus of the complainant till 01/11/2018 the date on which the vehicle was stolen away. According to the O.P., inspite of getting about two & half months time the complainant could not get the alleged vehicle registered and thus violated the terms and conditions of the policy. As such, it has been claimed by the O.P. that they have done no illegality by repudiating the claim and also there has been no negligence and deficiency in service from their part. Accordingly the O.P. has prayed for dismissal of the case.
In support of the case the complainant has submitted his evidence on affidavit as PW-1 and has also exhibited some documents. On the other hand, from the side of Opposite Party evidence on affidavit of one Sri Bibhuti Bhusan Chanda , Asstt. Manager of the O.P. Company, Silchar office has been submitted as DW-1. Both the witnesses were also cross-examined. Thereafter both sides also submitted written argument in addition of oral argument put forward by the learned counsels of the respective parties. Perused the entire evidence on record. Let us now appreciate the evidence below.
In his evidence PW-1 , the complainant, has reiterated the same facts as has been narrated in the complaint petition. PW-1 has averred that he is the owner of a TATA 407 Tipper bearing temporary registration no. AS-11/TC-35 and the said vehicle was insured with the O.P. New India Assurance Company Ltd. vide policy No.—12220031181150054702 valid from 15/09/2018 to 14/09/2019 and the assured sum of the vehicle was Rs. 11,27,455/- . It has been stated by PW-1 that he is an unemployed person and he purchased the vehicle for commercial purpose to maintain his livelihood and at the time of purchase dealer had given him a temporary registration no. AS-11TC/35 which was valid upto 18/08/2019. According to PW-1 about a month prior to taking delivery of the vehicle his father was diagnosed cancer and he was very busy with the tratment of his father. In the meantime his booked vehicle reached the dealer’s showroom and they were constantly keeping pressure on him for taking delivery of the vehicle. Further version of PW-1 is that though he took delivery of the vehicle on 15/09/2018 but due to financial crunch he could not manage the requisite money for registration of the vehicle. However after taking delivery of the vehicle the same was kept parked in his residential campus under proper lock and key taking sufficient precaution. He also did not ply the vehicle on road. On the other hand, he remained busy with the treatment of his father and was facing acute financial hardship. He was also in the belief that the temporary registration was valid for one year. In the meantime, it is stated that, on 01/11/2018 midnight the said vehicle was stolen away by some unknown miscreants from the residential campus of the complainant and to that effect an FIR was lodged and Sichar P.S. case No.-3801/2018 U/S 379 IPC was registered. PW-1 intimated the matter of theft of the vehicle to the O.P. Insurance Company and also submitted claim form. The Insurance Company appointed their panelled Investigator who investigated the matter. On the other hand, Police could not recover the stolen vehicle and failed to identify the accused and lastly submitted Final Report which was accepted by the court of learned CJM. But it reveals from the evidence of PW-1 that ultimately the Insurance Company repudiated the claim of the complainant. According to PW-1 , he is legally entitled to get the claim and the O.P. most illegally repudiated his claim without any valid ground and this illegal & negligent act of the O.P. Insurance Company has constituted disservice. PW-1 in support of his case has exhibited several documents i.e., Ext.-1 to Ext.-14 .
Perusal of the evidence of DW-1 shows that purchase of the alleged vehicle by the complainant and also the insurance of the vehicle with the O.P. Insurance Company, the theft of the said vehicle, lodging of FIR by the complainant with the Police and submission of claim with the O.P. and also denial of the claim all are not disputed in the case. But the DW-1 in his evidence has denied all the allegations levelled by the complainant. It also has been categorically denied by DW-1 that there occurred any negligence or disservice to the complainant on their part. DW-1 has submitted Ext.-A and Ext.- B in the case. Ext.-B is copy of claim repudiation letter which goes to show that the claim was repudiated only on the ground that on the date of theft of the alleged vehicle it was unregistered.
Admittedly on the date of theft of the insured vehicle it was not registered and the temporary registration of the vehicle had already expired. There is also nothing in the record to show that the complainant applied for a permanent registration or that he sought for extension of temporary registration beyond one month. It is the claim of the O.P. side that non-registration of the alleged vehicle with the Transport Authority by the complainant within the period of temporary registration of one month is a violation of section 39 of Motor Vehicles Act’ 1988 as well as terms and conditions of Insurance Policy. In connection with this case we may rely on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Civil Appeal No. 5887 of 2021 ( judgment delivered on 30/09/2021) in the caselaw “ United India Insurance Company Ltd. vs. sushil kumar Godara” . It has been observed by the Honourable Apex court that “ when an insurable incident that potentially results in liability occurs, there should be no fundamental breach of the conditions contained in the contract of insurance.” While passing judgment in the abovementioned case law the Honourable Apex court also relied on another case law- Narinder Singh Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd of 2014 decided by the same court. As such basing on the decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court it can be hold that the alleged repudiation of the insurance claims by the O.P. due to non-registration of the vehicle is neither illegal nor unjust . Accordingly in the case at hand the complainant is not entitled to get any relief .
In view of the above, the case of the complainant stands dismissed. Parties will bear their own costs.
The judgment is delivered with our signature and seal on this 28 th day of November’2022.
