Order by:

Smt.Priti Malhotra, President

1.       The present complaint has been filed by Smt.Amarjeet Kaur being wife of deceased Kamalajit Singh as well being nominee under the policy obtained by deceased Kamaljit Singh alongwith LRs of deceased Kamaljit Singh (here-in-under to be referred as complainants) under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 stating that deceased Kamaljit Singh s/o Joginder Singh was owner of Motor Cycle Pulsar Chassis No.E04788 Engine No.E30296 Model 2019 bearing temporary RC No.PB-69C-5968 and permanent RC No.PB-69C-5968. Claimed that the deceased (owner of the vehicle in question) was having valid driving license No.PB69201800000054 and the motorcycle in question was purchased from Opposite Party No.2, which was financed by Opposite Party No.3. It is averred that all the documents regarding purchase, insurance, registration duly signed by deceased Kamaljit Singh were submitted for the purpose of registration etc. by Kamaljit Singh himself while he was alive, to Opposite Party No.2. That said motorcycle was insured with Opposite Party No.1 under policy No.D003936989 from 21.02.2019 to 20.02.2024 for five years. The vehicle was insured for own damage cover, third party cover and personal owner driver cover. Stated further that as per the policy the insured had PA owner driver cover for Rs.15 lakhs. Submitted that the deceased Kamaljit Singh met with an unfortunate accident with stray animal (Bull) on 06.07.2019 in the outer Phirni of Village Mahla Kalan, District Moga, due to which deceased suffered injuries on his clevical bone and was admitted in the Gupta Hospital, Mudki Road, Baghapurana and remained under treatment from 06.07.2018 to 08.07.2019. Thereafter Kamaljit Singh (policy holder) died on 08.07.2019 at about 8:30 PM in the said Hospital. The gram panchayat of Village Mahla Kalan also passed a resolution regarding the death of Kamaljit Singh. Kamaljit Singh died leaving behind his legal heirs. After the death of deceased policy holder the claim was lodged with Opposite Party No.1 and also legal notices were issued, but vide letter dated13.02.2020 the opposite party no.1 repudiated the claim on the ground that vehicle in question was not registered on the date of accident.  Claiming that the repudiation of the claim is wrong and illegal. Hence, this complaint. Vide instant complaint, the complainants have sought the following reliefs:-

a)       Opposite party may be directed to pay Rs.15,00,000/- on account of death of Kamaljit Singh.

2.       Opposite Party No.1 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that  the contents of Complaint filed by the Complainants are absolutely and entirely wrong, incorrect, false, defective, fallaciously reasoned and are palpably devoid of merits and justification, hence the same are specifically, particularly, and emphatically denied with vehemence in entirety, in seriatim and verbatim; the present complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and moreover there is no registered office of Opposite Parties at Moga, hence this Hon'ble Commission has got no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint. Further submitted that answering opposite party has issued "Digit Two Wheeler Package Policy - Long Term" bearing policy no. D003936989 providing coverage for the period from 21^st Feb.2019 to 22.02.2020 for PA coverage apropos Engine No. E30296 Chassis No. E04788 which is valid from 21^st Feb.2019 to 22^nd Feb 2024 for own damage cover and for third party cover. Further submitted that the intimation regarding the loss was given to the Company on 19^th Aug 2019 and they immediately registered the claim under claim bearing registration No.2019 00110283 for ‘Personal accident claim’ and simultaneously appointed Investigator to ascertain the facts and collect necessary documents. Averred that the complainants in the present complaint are claiming for an indemnification of loss suffered by her, due to the death of the insured in the alleged motor vehicle accident that took place on 06^th July 2019 at 5pm. It is stated further that the intimation about the said accident/loss was received on 19^th Aug 2019 which is 43 days after the alleged loss which is gross violation of condition 1 of the policy terms and conditions. After intimation of the claim, a physical inspection/verification was carried out by an authorized investigator of the Opposite Party. Accordingly, a detailed report of the inspection dated 16^th Dec, 2019 was presented which disclosed many facts that were material for the Opposite Party to decide whether the said claim was admissible or not. Averred further that the alleged insured vehicle was purchased on 21^st Feb, 2019, but the vehicle neither had any temporary registration nor any application for registration was made with concerned RTO before leaving the showroom premises which makes it clear that the vehicle was not registered at the time of accident. In the said case the alleged loss took place at 6^th July, 2019 at 5 pm however the vehicle was not registered on the date of loss & the vehicle was registered only after the alleged accident that is on 23^rd July 2019, which is after the loss thus the claim stands to be inadmissible as per policy terms and condition and also under the provision of motor vehicle Act Section 39 and 43 of MV Act 1988. Moreover, there is no FIR, DDR of the accident in question and also there is no postmortem report of the insured given by the complainants to the answering opposite party to prove the death of insured. So, the answering opposite party is not liable to pay any claim as mentioned in the complaint, as vehicle involved was registered after the death of insured as well as after the date of accident and it is not only breach of the terms and conditions of the policy in question, infact the same is in violation of provision of the Motor Vehicle Act. Averred further that the Opposite party requested the complainants to provide for documentary evidence to clear the discrepancy with respect to the alleged vehicle registration. But the complainants failed to provide any satisfactory justification seeking reason for further processing of the claim. Due to non-cooperation from the claimant side and since the vehicle was not registered in the name of deceased policy holder, therefore the claim of the complainants was rightly repudiated and due intimation in this regard was sent to the complainants vide letter dated 13^th Feb 2020. Averred further that the complainants have not approached this Commission with clean hands and only with an intention to avail insurance claim, has manipulated the facts. It is further submitted that, this case involves intricate question of facts, which requires detailed trial, chief and cross examination of relevant witnesses as such it is not possible to decide the exact fact in issue in the summary procedure followed by this Commission. Therefore, the Complainants may be directed to approach the competent Civil Court. There is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of company. Reiterated that the complainant with his bad and malafide intention got the vehicle registered after the alleged date of loss which clearly shows the malafide and bad intention on the part of the complainant. On merits, all other allegations made in the complaint are denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint is made.

3.       Opposite Party No.2 appeared through counsel and filed written reply taking certain preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complainant has not approached this Commission with clean hands and has manipulated all the facts in regard to the alleged accident as there is no any eyes witness to the alleged accident, neither any FIR/DDR or any other proceedings u/s 174 Cr.P.C was conducted by the applicant/complainant in regard to the accident of the deceased, even there is no post mortem record of the deceased available or attached with the file and just to grab easy money from the opposite party has now filed the present complaint which is liable to be dismissed with heavy cost. There is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of answering Opposite Party and the complaint filed by the complainants is based on false and frivolous facts therefore the same is liable to be dismissed by this Commission. The complaint filed by the complainants is non maintainable against the party answering opposite no.2 as the said vehicle was purchased from the answering Opposite Party and was insured by the Opposite Party No.1, once the vehicle gets insured on chassis number and engine number insurance company is liable to pay its damages/claims in case of any Occurrence. Averred that the first insurance policy for a brand new vehicle is issued on the basis of the engine and chassis number of the vehicle to be insured. The insurer will then update the vehicle number registration records which is done in following ways:-

i)       Insurer contacts you either for a feedback/service/welcome/endorsement call etc. During this call the insurer asks the registration number and updates the same.

ii)      If the same is not updated throughout the year then at the time of renewal of the policy the registration number is mandatory and the insured has to provide the same to get the policy renewed.

                   This way in both the cases the insurer updates the registration number in their system, also it is worth mention here that the registration can only be done if a vehicle is insured, therefore the company issues insurance policy even if the vehicle doesn't have registration number, this system ensures the vehicle is insured just before it leaves the showroom and in the presence case the above mention facts at the part of insurance company are absent. Averred further that deceased policy holder purchased the mentioned vehicle Motor cycle pulsar chassis no. E04788 Engine no. E30296 Model 2019 bearing RC no. PB-69C-5968 on loan which was sanctioned by opposite party no.3. Averred further that the insurance policy was issued to the insured by opposite party no.2, when the vehicle was unregistered even bare reading of the section 43 of the Motor Vehicle Act show that even if there is a temporary registration number and the vehicle having temporary registration is valid only for one month. Averred further that the insurance company instead of providing  the insurance for one month has provide one year insurance and charged insurance premium for one year without making it clear that if the insured fails to get the vehicle registered within one month, then the insurance will be withdrawn and if there was any intention on the party of the insurance company that in case of single time violation of the section 39 of the act the insurance will be withdrawn then the company should have mentioned in the cover note of the policy and this is not the case and the insurance company has not withdrawn the said insurance, the insurance company cannot take the advantage of offence under section 192 r/w 39 of the act. On merits, it is submitted that complainant has manipulated all the facts in regard to the alleged accident neither any FIR/DDR or any other proceedings u/s 174 Cr.P.C was conducted by the complainant in regard to the accident of the deceased, even there is no post mortem record of the deceased available or attached with the file and just to grab easy money from the Opposite Party. All other allegations made in the complaint are denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint is made.

4.       Opposite Party No.3 filed written reply taking certain preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complainants do not have any locus standi to file the present complaint against the Opposite Party No.3, as the complainant has not signed and executed any loan agreement with Opposite Party No.3 in the capacity as applicant nor co-applicant/ guarantor, the OP 3 has not extended any service to the complainant. The Opposite Party No.3  further stated that on death of the customer(Borrower) there is no any contractual relation with the complainant, hence the present complaint deserves to be dismissed mere on this fact. Further submitted that Mr. Kamaljit Singh (deceased husband of complainant no.1) in capacity as applicant approached the Opposite Party No.3  and requested for financial assistance for purchase of a twowheeler make (PULSAR - 150 CLASSIC BLACK) and on considering the request and credentials of Kamaljit Singh, the Opposite Party No.3  agreed to extend financial facility to the tune of Rs. 90,990/- (including financial charges of Rs. 25,490/-). The subject loan extended for 30 months with an EMI of Rs. 3,033/- starting from 03.04.2019 to 03.09.2021, later as per mutual understanding on 26.02.2019 a Loan Agreement No. L2WMOG06878548 was executed. The OP 3 further states and submits that, at the time of execution of the Loan Agreement Mr. Kamaljit Singh had gone through and understood all the terms & conditions of the Loan Agreement and then only Mr. Kamaljit Singh had signed and executed the Loan Agreement. Opposite Party No.3  is only a financier to the present transaction and not responsible for insurance policy, claims or insurance related services and same is an admitted by the complainants in the present complaint. Submitted further that Opposite Party No.3 has received the legal notice dated 21.10.2019 & 14.02.203 and same was replied through its reply dated 16.12.2019 and 04.04.2023, though the reply, it is  clearly informed to complainant that this Opposite Party No.3  is only a financier in this present transaction and it is the sole responsibility of the complainants to process the claim proceeding with Insurance company if any policy availed by the deceased husband of complainant. All other allegations made in the complaint are denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint is made.

5.       It is well proved on record that deceased life assured Kamaljit Singh was the owner of Motor Cycle Pulsar bearing Chassis No.MD2A11CY0JRE04788 Engine No.DHYRJE30296 Model 2019 bearing temporary RC No.PB-69C-5968 and was having valid driving license No.PB69201800000054. It is evident on record that the vehicle in question was duly insured with Opposite Party No.1 and also deceased policy holder purchased PA Cover for Owner-Driver by paying Rs.330/-(Ex.C19) in addition. It is matter of record that deceased life assured met with an accident on 06.07.2019 and thereafter during treatment expired on 08.07.2019. Thereafter, the claim lodged by the complainants with regard to the death of her husband was repudiated by Opposite Party No.1 on the ground that at the time of accident, insured vehicle was not duly registered with the RTO. The moot question herein is to decide that whether the deceased policy holder was at fault in not applying for the registration of the vehicle well in time or not? Also it is to be adjudged that due to whose fault the vehicle in question was not got registered well in time and who shall be responsible to pay the claim, if any under the policy in question duly been issued in favour of deceased policy holder in question.

6.       Undoubtedly, the vehicle in question at the time of accident was not having valid registration certificate. The record reveals that the owner of the vehicle i.e. deceased policy holder/Kamaljit Singh duly discharged his burden for getting applied for registration of the vehicle in question by handing over all the documents to Opposite Party No.2 required for the registration of the vehicle in question. It is evident on record that the complainants under RTI procured certain documents from the RTO Department qua the registration of the vehicle in question. The bare perusal of those documents reveals that Opposite Party No.2 lately applied for the registration of the vehicle in question. The invoice of the vehicle in question reveals the date of its purchase as 21.02.2019, whereas the Provisional Registration Certificate was issued by Opposite Party No.2 for the period w.e.f 23.07.2019 to 22.08.2019 (Ex.C44) i.e. after five months from the date of purchase of the vehicle, which as per law was to be issued at time of purchase of the vehicle. Moreover perusal of the record further reveals that Opposite Party No.2 also applied for the Permanent Registration Certificate of the vehicle in question on 22.07.2019 i.e. one day before expiring of the provisional registration certificate and to the utter surprise the same was applied in the name of owner of the vehicle in question (who already expired on 08.07.2019). In nutshell, on the one hand Opposite Party No.2 issued the provisional registration certificate on 24.07.2019 valid upto 22.08.2019 and on the other hand, it applied for the permanent registration certificate on 22.07.2019 and that too after the death of owner of the vehicle in question. Ex.C45 i.e. receipt dated 22.07.2019 with regard to apply of Registration Certificate which bears the stamp of Opposite Party No.2 (dealer) and is duly signed by its authorized representative i.e. Vikas Setia. Thus, the deficiency in service rendered by Opposite Party No.2 is writ large, as it failed to render due services in time, the failure of which proved fatal to the genuine claim of the complainant. Also it reflects the utter negligence on the part of Opposite Party No.2, who badly failed to do the needful, which as per the statutory requirement it was duty bound to do.

7.       From the discussion above, it is abundantly clear that due to the negligence/deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party No.2 only, the genuine claim of the complainants got rejected. Had the registration certificate been timely applied, then the present complainants would not have been declined for getting the genuine claim under the policy. Hence we are of the concerted view that Opposite Party No.2 i.e. Krishna Motors is liable to make good the loss to the complainants, which they suffered due to deficiency in service rendered by Opposite Party No.2.

8.       Sequel to the above discussion, the present complaint is allowed and Opposite Party No.2/Krishna Motors is directed to pay Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakh only) to complainants in equal shares with regard to death claim of Kamaljit Singh (deceased policy holder in question). The pending application (s), if any also stands disposed of. The compliance of this order be made by the Opposite Party No.2 within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which, the Opposite Party No.2 is further burdened with additional costs of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) to be paid to the complainants in equal shares for non compliance of the order. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.

Announced in Open Commission