Haryana

Karnal

316/2013

Savitri Devi W/o Pirthi Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Sudhir Chauhan

14 Oct 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

                                                               Complaint No.316 of 2013

                                                             Date of instt.:16.07.2013

                                                               Date of decision:14.10.2016

 

Smt. Savitri Devi wife of late Shri Pirthi Singh, resident of village Singapura, Tehsil Safidon, District Jind.

 

                                                                   ……..Complainant.

                                      Vs.

1. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., having its Regd. Office at ICICI Bank Tower, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Mumbai, through its Director/Managing Director.

2. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. office at Sandhu Automobiles, Karnal Road, Assandh, through its Branch/Sub Divisional Manager/Authorized Signatory.

                                                                                  ………… Opposite Parties.

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before                   Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:-      Sh. Sumeer Aggarwal Advocate for the complainant.

                    Sh. Vinod Sharma Advocate for the Opposite parties.

                  

 ORDER:

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer protection Act 1986, on the averments that her son Mannu purchased a CD Deluxe Hero Honda Motorcycle bearing chasis no.MBLHA11ENC9E15950, Engine no.HA11ECC9E2954 and Temporary no.HR-99MM-371 from Sandhu Automobiles, Karnal Road, Assandh, vide invoice no.NH-481 dated 18.07.2012. The said motorcycle was duly insured by opposite party no.1, vide cashless policy no.3005/16757443/10770/000, valid from 19.07.2012 to 18.07.2013. On 18.09.2012 her son was driving the said motorcycle and met with an accident near Government College Israna at Pardhana Israna Link Road and sustained injuries in the said accident and succumbed to those injuries at the spot. The motorcycle was also totally damaged in the said accident. The motorcycle was got repaired by her from M/s Yadav Automobiles Jind Road, Safidon and an amount of Rs.10173/- was paid vide bill dated 29.01.2013. Under the policy, she being real mother of the insured/deceased is entitled to get personal accident benefit and vehicle damages claim. She informed the opposite parties regarding death of her son Mannu and damage to the motorcycle and requested for release of the claim. The opposite party no.1 asked for submitting the documents, vide letter dated 4.1.2013 and the claim was entertained as claim no.MOTO2852662 under the policy. All the requisite documents were submitted. She was assured that the claim would be released soon, but the matter was prolonged on one pretext or the other. Registered legal notice dated 28.05.2013 was got served upon the opposite parties, but the same also did not yield any result. In this way, there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, which caused her mental pain, agony and harassment apart from financial loss.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties, who appeared and filed written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that this forum has got no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint; that the complaint is not maintainable and the same is premature; that the complaint is not maintainable as the motorcycle was being driven by the deceased in unregistered position in violation of provisions of Section 39 of Motor Vehicles Act; that the complainant has not approached this forum with clean hands and that the complaint has been filed just to harass the opposite parties.

                   On merits, the factum of insuring the motorcycle for the period of 19.07.2012 to 18.07.2013 has been admitted. It has been submitted that the complainant lodged only personal accident claim of the deceased and no claim regarding damage to the insured vehicle was lodged. The complainant even failed to produce the required documents as mentioned in the letter dated 28.03.2013. Even otherwise, OD claim of the vehicle or personal accident claim of deceased, is not payable on the ground that there was violation of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

3.                In evidence of the complainant, her affidavit EX.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to C19 have been tendered.

4.                On the other hand, in evidence of the opposite parties, affidavit of Meenu Sharma Manager, Legal Ex.O1 and documents Ex.O2 to Ex.O5 have been tendered.

5.                We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

6.                The motorcycle of Mannu deceased, the son of complainant, was insured by opposite party no.1 for the period of 19.07.2012 to 18.07.2013. The said motorcycle met with an accident on 18.09.2012 while being driven by  Mannu and due to said accident Mannu died the spot and the motorcycle was damaged. As per the case of the complainant she got repaired the motorcycle and spent an amount of Rs.10,173/-, vide bill dated 29.01.2013. She lodged personal accident claim regarding death of Mannu and claim for damage to the vehicle, with the opposite parties, but the opposite parties did not settle the same despite registered notice, which amounted to deficiency in service.

7.                On the other hand, the opposite parties have submitted that the complainant did not submit any claim regarding damage to the vehicle and only personal accident claim was lodged. She was asked to submit the documents as mentioned in the letter dated 28.3.2013, but she did not submit those documents. It has also been submitted by the opposite parties that the motorcycle was purchased by Mannu on 18.07.2012. Temporary Registration of the same was also valid for 30 days, but even after expiry of 60 days from the date of purchase till 18.09.2012, there was no registration of the vehicle which was violation of Section 39 of Motor Vehicles Act, therefore, the opposite parties were not liable to pay any amount.

8.                Admittedly, the motorcycle was purchased by Mannu on 18.7.2012 and Temporary Registration Certificate no.HR-99MM-371 was issued on the date of purchase. The motorcycle met with accident on 18.9.2012 while being driven by Mannu and in the said accident Mannu died at the spot and the motorcycle was damaged.

9.                In case Narinder Singh Versus New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Ors.  the Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed the provisions of Section 39 and 43 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, regarding necessity for registration and temporary registration respectively and held that a bare perusal of Section 39 of Motor Vehicles Act shows that no person shall drive the motor vehicle in any public place or any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with the provisions of the Act. However, according to Section 43 of the Motor Vehicles Act the owner of the vehicle may apply to the registering authority for temporary registration and temporary registration mark. If, such temporary registration is granted by the authority, the same shall be valid only for a period not exceeding one month. Proviso to Section 43 clarified that the period of one month may be extended for such a further period by the Registering Authority only in case where a temporary registration is granted in respect of chasis to which the body has not been attached and the same is detained in a workshop beyond the said period of one month for being fitted with a body or any unforeseen circumstances beyond the control of the owner. Using a vehicle on the public road without any registration is not only an offence punishable under section 192 of the Motor Vehicle Act, but also a fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of insurance policy. In the cited case, the temporary registration was granted for one month, which expired on 11.01.2006 and the accident allegedly took place on 02.02.2006 when the vehicle was without registration. Nothing was 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 Motor Vehicle Act or made any application for extension of period as temporary registration on the ground of some special reasons. Under those circumstances, it was held that the insurance company was not liable.

10.              The proposition of law laid down in the aforecited authority is fully applicable to the facts of the present case, because there is no evidence on record to show that after expiry of the temporary registration, the owner either applied for permanent registration or made any application for extension of temporary registration on the ground of special reasons. As the motorcycle was being plied by the owner Mannu on 18.09.2012 i.e. on the date of accident after expiry of period of 30 days of temporary registration, thus, there was fundamental breach of the policy contract, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay any claim under the policy.

11.              As a sequel to the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in the present complaint. Therefore, the same is hereby dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 14.10.2016

                                                                                      (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                                         President,

                                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                             (Anil Sharma)

                               Member