Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 126
Instituted on : 26.03.2018
Decided on : 09.05.2024
Manik son of Sh. Azad Singh R/o Village Nindana Tehsil Meham District Rohtak.
……….………….Complainant.
Vs.
- HDFC ERGO Insurance Company Ltd. Office at 2nd Entrance Delhi Bye Pass, Rohtak, opposite Sector-1, Rohtak-124001 through Managing/Authorized signatory/Principal officer.
- Aseem Autos Pvt. Ltd. Delhi Bye Pass Rohtak now at 118/7 KM Stone, GT Road Karnal through Gagandeep Service Manager.
...........……Respondents/opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER
Present: None for complainant.
Smt. Ruchi Chawla, Advocate for the opposite party No.1.
Sh.Ashok Sehgal Advocate for the opposite party No.2.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case as per the complainant are that the complainant is the owner of a vehicle-car Renault KWID bearing Chassis no. MEEBBA000GA426008(mentioned in all documents whereas complainant has wrongly mentioned the same as MEEBBA000GAHZ), Engine no. E117293, which was got insured with the respondent vide Insurance policy no.23112015682474000, for the period 25.11.2016 to 24.11.2017, sum assured Rs.350278/- and complainant paid the required premium for the said vehicle. During the period of insurance policy the insured vehicle met with an accident on 04.04.2017 near Sampla Bye pass in the area of PS Sampla and suffered badly damages. FIR No. 135 dated 4.4.2017 was registered in PS Sampla. The complainant immediately given intimation of damages of said vehicle to the respondent. On the asking of the official of the respondent, complainant got repaired his aforesaid damaged vehicle and incurred Rs.2,07,000/-. Complainant submitted the bill and all other required documents in the office of the respondent and lodged his claim with the respondent regarding said damaged vehicle. The complainant repeatedly visited to the office of the respondent to get the claim amount but the respondent did not disburse the claim amount till date. Complainant completed all the formalities as required by the respondents and submitted all the required documents with the respondent, but respondent did not pay the genuine claim amount to the complainant. The act and conduct of the opposite party is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay the insurance claim of Rs.207000/- towards damages of the said vehicle along with interest @ 18% p.a. to the complainant from the date of accident till realization, to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation on account of deficiency service and harassment suffered by complainant along with Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses to complainant.
2. After registration of complaint notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No.1 in its reply has submitted that the insured vehicle met with an accident on 04/04/2017 and the complainant intimated about loss to the respondent on 26/05/2017 i.e after the delay of 52 days. As per the policy terms and condition no.1, the intimation about the incident is to be given immediately but in the present case the complainant intimated the respondent after the delay of 52 days and has violated the policy terms and condition No.1. It is further submitted that on the date of accident vehicle was not bearing the permanent registration number and thus it was being driven in sheer violation of law as well as insurance policy. It is submitted that the complainant brought the vehicle in question on 25/11/2016 with temporary registration No. HR-99AA-G(TP) 3910 which got expired after lapse of one month, i.e on 24/12/2016. It is further submitted that soon after receiving the receipt of loss intimation on 26/05/2017, in regard the happening of alleged accident of the vehicle on 04/04/2017, without any delay, duly appointed an IRDA approved an Independent surveyor, and after due verification of the document, it was found that vehicle was not registered at the time of accident, and non registration of the vehicle is violation of Motor Vehicle Act. Therefore, the repudiation of the claim done by the respondent vide letter dated 06/06/2017, and the same was duly intimated to the complainant. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied. It is prayed that complaint may kindly be dismissed with costs.
3. Opposite party no.2 in its reply has submitted that the vehicle was brought in the workshop of the respondent no.2 on 15.05.2017 and at that time, it was submitted by the complainant that the vehicle was insured with HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co. i.e. respondent no.1. It is further submitted that the complainant has deposited an amount of Rs.48000/- with the respondent no.2 on 25.05.2017. The vehicle of the complainant was repaired by the respondent no.2 and the total cost of the repair of the vehicle was Rs.184278/-. Out of the said amount an amount of Rs.144106/- was to be paid by the insurance company and remaining amount of Rs.40172/- was to be paid by the complainant. As such two invoices dated 31.08.2017 i.e. one in the name of respondent no.1 and another in the name of complainant were generated. But the respondent no.1 has repudiated the claim of the complainant. An amount of Rs.48000/- has already been paid by the complainant and the remaining amount of Rs.136278/- is still payable by the complainant. But the complainant has not paid the amount and the vehicle is still parked in the workshop of opposite party no.2 . Two notices dated 10.09.2020 and 11.01.2021 were issued to the complainant to pay the said amount and to take the delivery. But the complainant has neither paid the amount nor took the delivery of vehicle. Complainant has filed the present complaint to receive the said amount from the insurance company whereas opposite party is entitled to receive the amount of repair and other charges from the complainant. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied. It is prayed that complaint may kindly be dismissed with costs.
4. Ld. counsel for complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.PW1/A, documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P8 and closed his evidenced on 30.01.2019. Ld. Counsel for opposite parties has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A & Ex.RW2/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R11 and closed his evidence on 09.07.2019. On the other hand, opposite party no.2 made a statement that reply already filed on its behalf be read in evidence, tendered documents Ex.R2/A to Ex.R2/I and closed his evidence on 01.02.2024.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the opposite parties, perused the documents placed on record by the complainant and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. In the present case, as per the complainant he had purchased Renault KWID car having Engine no. E117293, Chassis no. MEEBBA000GA426008, on dated 25.11.2016 amounting to Rs.350278/-. The alleged vehicle met with an accident on 04.04.2017 and regarding this accident FIR No.135 dated 04.04.2017 was got registered in P.S.Sampla. The vehicle was brought in the workshop of respondent no.2 for the repair. As per complainant he spent an amount of Rs.207000/- on the repair of the vehicle but the claim of the complainant has not been paid by the respondent no.1. Through this complaint the complainant has demanded an amount of Rs.207000/- on account of repair of vehicle, Rs.25000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses. During the pendency of complaint respondent no.2 was impleaded as necessary party.
7. We have minutely perused the reply filed by opposite parties. Respondent no.1 in its reply has submitted that the vehicle was not registered on the date of accident and further submitted that the intimation regarding the alleged accident was given in the insurance company belatedly i.e. on 26.05.2017 after a delay of 52 days. It has been further submitted that the temporary registration no. of the vehicle was issued on 25.11.2016 for one month. After that the vehicle was not got registered. Respondent no.2 in its reply has submitted that the vehicle was brought in the workshop of the respondent no.2 on 15.05.2017 and at that time, it was submitted by the complainant that the vehicle was insured with HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co. i.e. respondent no.1. The vehicle of the complainant was repaired by the respondent no.2 and the total cost of the repair of the vehicle was Rs.184278/-. Out of the said amount an amount of Rs.144106/- was to be paid by the insurance company and remaining amount of Rs.40172/- was to be paid by the complainant. As such two invoices dated 31.08.2017 i.e. one in the name of respondent no.1 and another in the name of complainant were generated. But the respondent no.1 has repudiated the claim of the complainant. An amount of Rs.48000/- has already been paid by the complainant on 25.05.2017 and the remaining amount of Rs.136278/- is still payable by the complainant. But the complainant has not paid the amount and the vehicle is still parked in the workshop of opposite party no.2 . Two notices dated 10.09.2020 and 11.01.2021 were issued to the complainant to pay the said amount and to take the delivery. But the complainant has neither paid the amount nor took the delivery of vehicle.
8 We have perused the documents placed on record by both the parties. Complainant has placed on record documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P8. On the other hand opposite party No.1 has placed on record documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R11. The registration certificate of the vehicle has not been placed on record by the complainant. As per letter Ex.R6, Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 states that:
39. Necessity for registration.
"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”. We have also perused the authority placed on record by ld. Counsel for the opposite party No.1 i.e. Civil Appeal no.8463 of 2014 of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Narinder Singh Vs. New India Assurance Co. and others whereby Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that “Nothing has been brought on record by the appellant to show that before or after 11.01.2006, when the period of temporary registration expired, the appellant, owner of the vehicle either applied for permanent registration as contemplated under section 39 of the Act or made any application for extension of period as temporary registration on the ground of some special reasons. . It is further held that using a vehicle on the public road without any registration is not only an offence punishable under section 192 of the Motor vehicles Act but also a fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of policy contract”. In the present case also the complainant has not placed on record the Registration Certificate of the vehicle. Hence the claim of the complainant has rightly been repudiated by the opposite party. In view of the aforesaid law which is fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby dismiss the present complaint with no order as to costs.
9. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
09.05.2024.
........................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
……………………………….
Vijender Singh, Member
