Delhi

West Delhi

CC/15/86

Rajender Taneja - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC Ego Gen. Ins. Co. - Opp.Party(s)

07 Jun 2017

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

                            GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

  150-151 Community Centre, C-Block, JanakPuri, New Delhi – 110058

 

                                                                                     Date of institution: 02.02.2015

Complaint Case. No.86/15                                             Date of order:07.06.2017

IN  MATTER OF

Mr. RajenderTaneja S/o Sh. B.S. Taneja R/o F-19  Kirti Nagar,  New Delhi-110015.                                                                                 Complainant

 

VERSUS

1.        HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Pvt.  Ltd. through its General Manager/ Authorised  person  Unit No. 502, 504 and  506, 5^thFloor Mahtta Tower, B-1 Block, Community Centre,JanakPuri, New Delhi-110058.

                                                                                                            Opposite party no.1

2.        Sincere Marketing Services Pvt. Ltd. , E-5 Masjid Moth, G.K. III, New Delhi-110048

                                                                                                Opposite party no.2

ORDER

R.S. BAGRI,PRESIDENT

            Shri Rajender Taneja named above here in the complainant has filed the present consumer complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act for directions to  HDFC  Ergo General Insurance  Company Pvt. Ltd. and another here in after in short referred as the opposite parties to pay claimed/insured amount of his stolen truck and Rs. 5,00,000/-  as compensation on the ground of  mental, physical  and financial agony suffered  by the complainant on account of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party no.1

The brief  relevant facts necessary for disposal of  the present complaint as stated are that the complainant vide sale  certificate dated 03.03.2014   purchased   a truck  bearingchassis no MC233HRCOEA089712 and  Engine no. E483CDDM632042manufactured  byEicher, VE Commercial Vehicles Ltd. for sale consideration of Rs. 12,25,072/- vide  invoice  no. VBD/00693 dated  28.02.2014.  The complainant at the time of taking delivery of the vehicle filled in proposal form for insurance of the vehicle for the period from03.03. 2014 to 02.03.2015 on payment of Rs. 34,408/- as total premium  of the insurance of the vehicle.

That  the complainant  with  his driver Sh. Suresh and Vijay took  the vehicle and parked  near his  residence  at KirtiNagar, New Delhi.  On the same day at about 4.00 A.M. Sh. Vijay, driver of the complainant noticed  that the vehicle  was missing , therefore,  the complainant rang at 100 number and lodged FIR No. 154 dated  05.03.2014 under Section 379 of Indian  Penal Code at Police Station Kirti Nagar, New Delhi.  The police investigated the matter and submitted untrace report to the Illaqua Metropolitan Magistrate. He accepted the report.  The complainant  submitted claim to the opposite party no.1 for loss of his truck on account of theft. The opposite party no. 1vide letter dated 19.09.2014 repudiated  claim of the complainant  stating that vehicle  was not registered as required under  section 39 of the Motor Vehicle Act, according to which no vehicle  can  be plied  on road without registration,therefore, there is  violation of statutoryprovisions of section 39 of Motor Vehicle Act  and the opposite party no.1is not liable to pay any compensation on account of insurance of their vehicle.  Therefore,the complainant sent a legal notice to the opposite part no.1. to pay the compensation.  But the opposite party no. 1 did not pay any heed to request of the complainant.  Hence the present complaint for directions to the opposite party no.1 to pay  sale amount/insured amount  of the stolen truck to the complainant and Rs. 5,00,000/-  as compensation on the ground of  mental, physical  and financial agony suffered  by the complainant on account of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

After notice the opposite party no.1appeared and filed reply while admitting that the vehicle of the complainant was insured with the opposite partyno. 1from 03.03.2014 to 02.03.2015.  The vehicle wasstolen on 04.03.2014. The complainant  lodged FIR with Police Station, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi.  He also filed claim with the opposite party no. 1.  But asserted that claim of the complainant was repudiated on the ground that the complainant brought the vehicle on road without registration in violation ofsection 39 of the Motor Vehicle Act, according to which no vehicle can be plied or brought on road without registration, therefore, the opposite party no. 1 rightly repudiated claim of the complainant.  There is no unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party no. 1.  The opposite party no.1 is not liable to pay insured amount and any compensation to the complainant.  All other allegations of the complaint are vehemently denied  by the opposite party no.1  and prayed dismissal of the complaint.

Despite service the opposite party no.2 did not appear.  Therefore, the opposite party no. 2 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 22.12.2015.

The complainant filed rejoinder to the reply of the opposite party no. 1 controverting standof the opposite party no.1 and reiteratedhis stand taken in the complaint.

            When the complainant was asked to lead evidence by way of affidavit, he filed affidavit narrating facts  of the complaint.  He also relied upon proposal form of  insurance of vehicle  dated 03.03.2014, repudiation letter  dated 19.09.2014, FIR No. 154 dated 05.03.2014  under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code, Police Station Kirti Nagar,  untrace report  dated 05.03.2014, cheque no. 948680 dated 26.02.2014 for Rs. 12,700,72/-, sales  certificate  of the vehicle dated 03.03.2014, invoice dated 24.02.2014, form of trade certificatedated 12.11.2013 and statement  of account dated 19.11.2015 of account No. 620219021 of account of complainant.

            When the opposite party no. 1 was asked to lead evidence by way of affidavit, they tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. Pankaj Kumar, Legal  Manager narrating  facts of the reply.  The opposite party no.1 also relied upon annexure-I investigation report  dated 03.11.2014 submitted by Suraksha Enterprises  on instructions of the opposite parties and  exhibit  E-2  life insurance policy No. 2315200695909600000 dated 05.03.2014  from 03.03.2014 to 02.03.2015.

            The parties also submitted written arguments in support of their respective contentions.

            We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on record carefully and thoroughly.

            After having heard both the sides and going through the material on the record it is common case of parties that the complainant on 03.03.2014 on payment of Rs. 34,408/- insured the vehicle with the opposite party no.1 from 03.03.2014 to 02.03.2015 .  The vehicle was stolen on 04.03.2014  from Kirti Nagar, New Delhi and FIR No.154 dated 05.03.2014  under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code was registered at Police Station, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi.  The police submitted untrace report to the Illaqua Metropolitan Magistrate.  The untrace  report  was  accepted  by the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate.  The complainant submitted claim of loss of his vehicle  with the opposite party no.1.  The Opposite party no.1 repudiated claim of the complainant on the ground that the vehicle was not registered as required under section 39 of the  Motor vehicle Act at the time of the theft.  Therefore, the complainant violated statutory provisions of section 39 of the Motor Vehicle Act and also violated terms and conditions of the insurance policy, therefore, opposite party no.1 repudiated claim of the complainant  on the ground that the complainant plied the vehiclewithout registration as required under section 39 of the Motor Vehicle Act.  Where asaccording to the provisions of the section 39 of the Motor Vehicle Act no vehicle can be plied without registration.

            It is worth while to rewrite letter dated19.09.2014 vide which claim of the complainant is repudiated by the opposite party no.1  Which runs as under:-

            “During the verification of documents it was found that your vehicle was not registered at the time of theft.  We would like to bring in your notice that registration of the vehicle is mandatory requirement  of the law.

            The relevant provision, section 39 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988, reads as - “No person shall drive  any motor vehicle  and no owner of a motor vehicle  shall cause  or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered  in accordance with this  Chapter and the certificate of registration  of the vehicle  has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration  mark displayed in the prescribed manner.  Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a motor vehicle  in possession  of a dealer subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the  Central Government.”

Clearly therefore, till the vehicle receives this certificate of registration from the competent authority, it is not legally useable on roads.  This use of the motor vehicle was in clear violation of the statutory requirement of registration use of the vehicle in violation of the law itself will take it beyond the protection of the policy.

In lieu of above we are  constrained  to inform  you that we would not be  able to honor out liability for sad loss and are constrained to close the claim as no claim ”

            Learned counsel for the complainant argued that the opposite party no.1 repudiated  claim of the complainant  vide letter dated 19.09.2014 only on the ground that the vehicle was plied without registration in violation of section 39 of the Motor Vehicle  Act.But the complainant in the complaint has specifically mentioned that the vehicle was temporarily registered under Section 39 of the Motor Vehicle Act.  The case of the complainant  is supported by  annexure  R-1 investigation  report of Suraksha Enterprises  appointed  by the opposite party no.1.  In annexure R-1 at serial nos. 2 and  10  of brief details of the vehicle are given as under:-

Vehicle Type	TRUCK
Make	EICHER Ltd.
Registration  No.	DL3TC5275
Chassis No.	89712
Engine No.	32042

From  bare reading of the investigation report annexure  R-1 it is evident that the vehicle  was having registration No. DL3TC5275 at the time of theft, therefore, the ground  taken  by  the opposite party  for repudiation of the claim  of the complainant that the vehicle  was not registered  at the time of the theft stands falsified. 

Therefore we are of the opinion that the opposite party no.1  adopted unfair trade practices and there is deficiency in service  on the part of the  opposite partyno.1 declining claim of the complainant. The complainant has suffered loss of the vehicle.He has also suffered mentally, physically and financially on account of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the  part of the   opposite party no. 1.   Therefore, the opposite party no.1is liable to pay insurance amount/sum insured and compensation on account of unfair trade practice, deficiency in service, mental, physical and financial agony suffered by the complainant.

            Admittedlyasper insurance policy No. 2315200695909600000dated 05.03.2014 insured declared value/sum insured of the vehicle isRs.11,63,818/-  The complainant  also paid a sum ofRs. 34,408/- of the insurance premium.  The complainant has also  suffered mental, physical and financial agony on account of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the  part of  opposite party no.1, therefore, we direct the opposite party no.1  to pay Rs. 11,63,818 /-  insured value of the vehicleand Rs. 34,408/- of insurance  premium  totaling Rs. 11,98,226/-  with interest @ 9% p.a. from  the date of  filing the present complaint till actual realization andRs. 1,00,000/- as compensation on account of mental, physical and financial agony suffered by the  complainant.

Order pronounced on : 07.06.2017

 

• Compliance of the order be made within 30 days after receipt of the order.
• Copy of order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
• Thereafter, file be consigned to record.

 

 

 

(PUNEET LAMBA)                                                              ( R.S.  BAGRI )

                         MEMBER                                                                               PRESIDENT