Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/201/2023

LIBERTY GENERAL INSURANCE LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

DEEPIKA PULANI - Opp.Party(s)

SACHIN OHRI

29 May 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

Appeal No.	:	201 of 2023
Date of Institution	:	10.08.2023
Date of Decision	:	29.05.2024

1. Liberty General Insurance Ltd., 10^th Floor, Tower A, Peninsula Business Park, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai 400013, through its Authorized Signatory Shraddha Kinare, Corporate Legal Manager.
2. Liberty General Insurance Ltd., SCO 145-146, Sector 9-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh 160017 through its Authorized Signatory Shraddha Kinare, Corporate Legal Manager, Liberty General Insurance Ltd., 10^th Floor, Tower A, Peninsula Business Park, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai  (West) 400013.

   …Appellants

V e r s u s

Deepika Pulani w/o Rajat Pulani r/o House No.2006/19, Sector 32-C, Chandigarh.

….…..Respondent

BEFORE:    JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT.

                    MR.RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER.

 

Present:-  Sh.Sachin Ohri, Advocate for the appellants.

                Sh.Dilpreet Singh Gandhi, Advocate for respondent.

 

PER JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI

 

                   The appellants (opposite parties no.1 and 2) have assailed the order dated 01.05.2023 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh (in short the District Commission), whereby the consumer complaint bearing no.346 of 2020 filed by the complainant (respondent) was partly allowed as under:-

“….In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is hereby partly allowed and OPs are directed as under :-

1. to pay the IDV of ₹1,47,953/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of repudiation of the claim, till realization of the same.
2. to pay an amount of ₹20,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to her;
3. to pay ₹10,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above...…”

2.           Before the District Commission, it was the case of the complainant (now respondent) that she had purchased a Royal Enfield motorcycle, Model No.Classic 350 ABS – Gun Grey from Garg Autos, Chandigarh  vide invoice dated 9.10.2019 (Annexure C-1) for a sum of Rs.1,55,740/-, which was got insured by her from the opposite parties vide policy (Annexure C-2), valid for the period from 9.10.2019 to 8.10.2020. An amount of Rs.8,260/- was paid by her as premium.  On purchasing the subject motorcycle, the complainant got a temporary number on 9.10.2019.  However, the complainant could not get herself registered for the allotment and e-auction of the permanent number as the online portal of the Chandigarh RTO was closed. Thereafter, when the said office was functional for new series numbers on 12.11.2019, the complainant got her online appointment registered on 18.11.2019 and she was allotted appointment on 2.12.2019 by the concerned authority, regarding which messages (Annexure C-5) were generated. The complainant, who had fulfilled all the requirements for acquiring the fancy number, was informed by the authorities on 21.11.2019 that she has become successful bidder of registration No.CH01-BZ-5600 and was asked to clear the remaining amount of the RTO office to reserve the number. The complainant did the needful and permanent number of choice was allotted to her on 21.11.2019.  Unfortunately, on the morning of 22.11.2019, when the complainant got up, she found the subject motorcycle stolen and immediately she reported the matter to the police and FIR No.0302 (Annexure C-8) was registered. The police swung into action and started investigation, but, despite all efforts, it could not search/trace out the lost motorcycle and accordingly the police had prepared the untraced report (Annexure C-9) under Section 173 Cr.PC and the complainant was informed about the same on 31.1.2020. The complainant has been pursuing with the opposite parties and requesting them through emails for the clearance of her genuine claim, but, with no result. The opposite parties had repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that since the vehicle was not registered in accordance with Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which is a material term of the policy, the claim cannot be allowed.  Hence consumer complaint was filed before the District Commission.
3.           The complaint was contested by the opposite parties and they filed written version, wherein it was stated that  as per the case of the complainant, the subject motorcycle was stolen on 22.11.2019 whereas she had reported the matter to the police on 5.12.2019 and further since the subject motorcycle was not registered in the name of the complainant at the relevant time, there was a clear violation of the terms and conditions of the policy as even under Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act, no person can be allowed to drive the vehicle without getting the same registered.  Thus, the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated by the opposite parties only when it was found that the terms and conditions of the policy have been violated by the complainant. All other allegations made in the complaint were denied being wrong.
4.           In the rejoinder filed, the complainant reiterated all the averments contained in her complaint and controverted those, contained in the written version of opposite parties.
5.           The contesting parties led evidence before the District Commission.
6.           The District Commission after hearing the contesting parties and on going through the material available on record, partly allowed the consumer complaint, in the manner stated above. 
7.           Hence this appeal.
8.           We have heard the contesting parties and gone through the material available on the record very carefully.
9.           The short question which needs to be decided by this Commission is, as to whether, the appellants were justified in repudiating the claim of the respondent or not. It may be stated here that the respondent by way of placing on record the document Annexure C-4 has proved her case that she had participated in the e-auction of the vehicle registration of new series starting from 12.11.2019 and she was successful bidder in getting registration No.CH01-BZ-5600, which fact is evident from the document, Annexure C-7 i.e. the intimation given by VK-VAAHAN portal. The respondent was asked by the authority to pay the balance amount by submitting new draft/getting the balance amount from the RTO office to reserve the number within given working days. The said e-auction result of registration was declared on 21.11.2019, Annexure C-7, which also makes it clear that the complainant had deposited the said amount with the authority and the aforesaid number was allotted to her accordingly. Thus, in our considered opinion, when it has come on record that the entire process for the allotment of registration number of the motorcycle in question had already been completed before 21.11.2019, when fancy No.CH01-BZ-5600 was allotted to the respondent, by the authority after the deposit of the entire registration fee, she became the registered owner of the subject motorcycle by having registration No.CH01-BZ-5600 on the very same day. This Commission also cannot lost sight of the fact that the motorcycle in question was admittedly stolen on the 22.11.2019 and when it was not found, untraced report was also provided on 13.1.2020 under Section 173 Cr.P.C. Under these circumstances, it has been proved that as on the date of theft of the motorcycle i.e. on 22.11.2019, the respondent/complainant was the registered owner thereof. As such, the appellants were not justified in repudiating the genuine claim of the complainant on the ground that the complainant was not the registered owner of the subject motorcycle on the date of theft or otherwise. The District Commission was also right in holding so.
10.           To strengthen their case, counsel for the appellants have placed reliance on the cases Narinder Singh Versus New India Assurance Company Ltd. and Ors., Law Finder Doc Id#607847, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Sushil Kumar Godara, Law Finder Doc Id #1888156 decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Vikram Kanda (NCDRC), Law Finder Doc Id #793223. We have gone through these cases and found that the facts thereof are totally distinguishable to that of the present case. In all these three cases, the respective dates on which the respective vehicles were stolen were not having any registration numbers and their temporary number had already expired. Whereas, in the present case, as stated above, as on the date of theft of the motorcycle in question on 22.11.2019, it had already been got registered by the respondent, under registration bearing No.CH01-BZ-5600 as on 21.11.2019. Under these circumstances, no help can be drawn by the appellants from  Narinder Singh; United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.’s cases (supra)
11.           Keeping in view the above discussion, we are of the considered view that the impugned order passed by the District Commission, partly allowing the consumer complaint, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence and law on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, and did not need interference of this Commission. 
12.           Resultantly, this appeal stands dismissed with no order as to cost.
13.           Pending application(s) if any stands disposed of, accordingly.
14.           Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge, forthwith.
15.           The concerned file be consigned to Record Room, after completion and the record of the District Commission, after annexing the additional documents, if any, submitted before this Commission in this appeal, be sent back immediately.

 

Pronounced

29.05.2024

Sd/-

 [JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(RAJESH K. ARYA)

 MEMBER

Rg.