Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 320
Instituted on : 18.07.2018
Decided on : 29.11.2023.
Vikas Kumar s/o Sh. Krishan Singh Age 27 R/o House no.126 Village Ritoli District Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Sunny Goel Surveyor & Loss Assessor (Motor, Miss. & Marine Cargo) House no.1408, Sector-1, HUDA, Rohtak 124001 Licence No.73395.
- HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Limited through its Branch Manager, Crop. Office D-301, 3rd Floor, Business District(Magnet Mall) LBS Marg, Bhandup(West) Mumbai-400078.
…….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1988
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER
Present: Sh. PardeepGoyat, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Gulshan Chawla, Advocate for the opposite party No.2.
Opposite party No.1 exparte.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case, as per the complainant are that he is having a tractor bearing registration no.HR-12AF-1569 and the same was insured with the opposite party vide policy no.2316202007599300000 valid for the period 20.11.2017 to 19.11.2018. On 01.01.2018 the tractor of the complainant met with an accident and was badly damaged. Complainant informed the opposite party about the accident and the surveyor inspected the vehicle of complainant and thereafter same was repaired and an amount of Rs.106250/- was spent on repairing of the tractor. Complainant submitted all the relevant documents and bills of parts and labour, spent by the complainant for the repair of his tractor. But despite repeated requests of the complainant, the claim amount has not been disbursed to the complainant. Opposite party vide its letter dated 05.02.2018 has repudiated the claim of the complainant on false ground. The act of opposite parties 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 claim amount of Rs.106250/-alongwithinterest @ 18% p.a., Rs.50000/- as compensation for causing harassment and Rs.22000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party no.1 did not appear despite service and as such opposite party no.1 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 13.09.2018 of this Commission. Opposite party No.2 in its reply has submitted that on the receipt of claim intimation, opposite parties appointed an IRDA approved surveyor, to assess the loss qua the vehicle in question. Thereafter, during claim process it was found that the documents which were necessary for the settlement of claim werenot provided by the complainant. Thus opposite party served letters dated 04.01.2018 and 23.01.2018 requesting the complainant for submission of documents. But the complainant opted not to submit the documents. Hence the claim of the complainant was rightly declined vide letter dated 05.02.2018 for want of submission of documents and clarification sought/requested vide letter dated 04.01.2018 and 23.012018. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. Ld. Counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C10 and closed his evidence on dated 17.07.2019. Ld. Counsel for the opposite party No.2 tendered affidavit Ex.RW2/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R6, and closed his evidence on 02.12.2020.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. We have perused the documents placed on record by both the parties. In the present case the claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the opposite parties vide their letter Ex.R4 dated 05.02.2018 on the ground that “Your failure to provide the requested documents to us despite our reminders constitutes a non-compliance with the terms of the policy. Hence we regret to inform you that we are closing the claim as “No Claim” in our record”. We have also perused the survey report Ex.R5, as per which the surveyor has denied the claim by giving the reason: “As the vehicle is New & commencement of risk starts from 20.11.2017 to 19.11.2018 that means as per policy Temporary RC expires on 19.12.2017 & date of loss is 01.01.2018 & date of Permanent registration on 19.01.2018 & whereas temp no. expired on 19.12.2017. This is violation of motor vehicle act hence claim is not payable”. On the other hand, complainant has not placed on record any document that he had applied for permanent registration of the vehicle after expiry of temporary RC or before the date of accident. We have also placed reliance upon the ratio of law laid down in II(2018)CPJ 478(NC), titled as GupreetsinghDheri vs. United India Ins. Co. Ltd, whereby Hon’ble National Commission has held that:
“Indisputably, a temporary registration was granted in respect of the vehicle in question, which had expired on 11.1.2006 and the alleged accident took place on 2.2.2006 when the vehicle was without any registration. Nothing has been brought on record by the appellant to show that before or after 11.1.2006, 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. In our view, therefore, 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”. It is further held that : the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Narinder Singh Vs New India Assurance Company Ltd. on 4 September, 2014had clearly held as under:“In our view, therefore, using 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 the policy contract". Hence, held that the insurance company could not be found deficient in service in repudiating the claim”.
6. In view of the aforesaid law which are fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby dismiss the present complaint with no order as to costs.
7. 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:
29.11.2023.
........................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
TriptiPannu, Member.
..........................................
Vijender Singh, Member.
