DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA(PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> <br /> C.C.No.349 of 13.12.2007<br /> Decided on : 3.3.2008 <br /> <br /> <br /> Gurmeet Singh S/o Darshan Singh, R/o House No. 19039, Street No. 14, Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar, Bathinda.<br /> ...... Complainant<br /> <br /> Versus. <br /> 1.ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited through its Registered Office- ICICI Bank Towers, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400 051.<br /> 2.ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Sharma Complex, Ist Floor, 3039 A, Front Portion, Bathinda-151 001. <br /> ..... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986<br /> <br /> QUORUM:<br /> <br /> Sh.Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> Sh. Hira Lal Kumar, Member<br /> Dr.Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the complainant : Sh. S.S Dhillon, Advocate<br /> For the opposite parties : Sh. Vinod Garg, Advocate<br /> O R D E R.<br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT:-<br /> 1. Motorcycle Bajaj CT 100 purchased by the complainant on 17.8.2006 for a consideration of Rs. 31,650/- was insured with opposite party No. 1 on 18.8.2006 vide policy No. 3005/50901301/00/000. Insurance was valid from 18.8.2006 to 17.8.2007. He had obtained temporary registration No. PB-03-Temp 1980. On 14.5.2007, this vehicle had met with an accident. First<br /> <br /> Information Report No. 49 was got registered in Police Station Rampura, District Bathinda. Motorcycle was completely damaged. He (complainant) had received injuries. Pillion rider had died at the spot. Insurance claim was submitted. It was repudiated by the opposite parties vide letter dated 27.11.2007 on the ground that at the time of accident, this vehicle was not registered one. Subsequently, complainant got the vehicle registered and its registration No. is PB-03Q-3009. Complainant is assailing the repudiation of the claim as illegal, arbitrary, null and void. In these circumstances, complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as the Act) has been preferred seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite parties to pay him the price of the motorcycle i.e. Rs. 31,650/-; Rs.20,000/- for mental tension, wastage of time, money and energy in litigation and Rs. 5,500/- as costs of the complaint.<br /> 2. Opposite parties filed their version taking legal objections tht complaint has been filed to injure their goodwill and repudiation; complainant has concealed material facts from this Forum; he has got no locus-standi and cause of action to file it; complaint is not maintainable in the present form; it is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties i.e. ICICI Bank with which vehicle is hypothecated; complicated and complex questions of law and facts are involved which cannot be decided in summary procedure by this by this Forum and complaint is false and frivolous. They do not dispute the insurance of the Motorcycle. According to them, temporary registration was valid only upto 15.9.2006. Vehicle was permanently registered on 11.6.2007. On 14.5.2007 i.e. the date of alleged accident, vehicle was not registered as required under section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is an offence under section 192 of the Motorcycle Vehicles Act. He was plying the vehicle on a public place. Motorcycle was not totally damaged. Claim has been rightly repudiated. Er.<br /> <br /> Rakesh Kumar Gupta Licensed Surveyor & Loss Assessor was deputed to conduct survey and assess the loss. Survey was conducted by him on 15.9.2007. He has submitted his detailed survey report dated 24.11.2007 assessing the loss to the tune of Rs. 21,568/- after considering the wreck value as Rs. 8,500/- and Rs. 18,068/- on the basis of wreck value of Motorcycle offered by the insured. They deny the remaining averments in the complaint. <br /> 3. In support of his allegations and averments in the complaint, Gurmeet Singh complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit (Ex.C.1), photocopy of FIR (Ex.C.2), photocopy of letter dated 27.11.2007 (Ex.C.3), photocopy of Registration Certificate (Ex.C.4), photocopy of Retail Invoice (Ex.C.5) and photocopy of Cover Note (Ex.C.6).<br /> 4. On behalf of the opposite parties, reliance has been placed on the survey report dated 24.11.2007 (Ex.R.1), affidavits (Ex.R.2 & Ex.R.3) of S/Sh. Sat Parkash, their Authorised Signatory and Rakesh Kumar Gupta, Surveyor & Loss Assessor respectively and photocopy of Certificate-cum-Policy Schedule (Ex.R.4). <br /> 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. Apart from this, we have considered written arguments submitted by the parties. <br /> 6. Contention of the learned counsel for the complainant is that insurance claim has been declined by the opposite parties on baseless and flimsy grounds and as such, repudiation is illegal and arbitrary.<br /> 7. Mr. Vinod Garg, learned counsel for the opposite parties argued that Motorcycle was not registered on 14.5.2007 i.e. the day of accident as per Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Such act is punishable under section 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Since, there is violation of the statutory provisions of the law, no claim is payable and claim has been rightly repudiated vide letter<br /> <br /> dated 27.11.2007, copy of which is Ex.C.3.<br /> 8. We have considered the respective arguments. Material question for determination is as to whether repudiation of the insurance claim submitted by the complainant is justified. Onus to prove it is upon the opposite parties. Admittedly, Motorcycle was insured for Rs. 30,068/-. Temporary registration No. PB-03-Temp 1980 was given to it. After the expiry of the period of temporary registration, complainant did not get the permanent registration number in respect of this vehicle till 11.6.2007. On 14.5.2007, Motorcycle was not permanently registered with the District Transport Officer/Registering Officer although policy was in force. Question is as to whether the opposite parties can evade its liability to pay compensation simply on the ground that Motorcycle was not got permanently registered on 14.5.2007. Section 39 of Motor Vehicles Act upon which opposite parties are placing reliance does not prohibit owning of the vehicle. Learned counsel for the opposite parties could not show us violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. Registration of the vehicle has no direct nexus with the accident. If complainant was not having permanent registration number at the time when insurance of the vehicle was applied for, opposite parties could refuse to insure the vehicle. In this view of the matter, we are fortified by the observations of the Hon'ble National Commission in the case of HDFC Chubb General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Ila Gupta and others-2007 CTJ-232 (C.P)(NCDRC). In these circumstances and in view of the fact that no violation of the terms and conditions of the policy has been proved, repudiation of the claim made by the opposite parties is set-aside leading to deficiency in service on their part. Once it is so, it cannot be said that complainant has no locus-standi and cause of action to file the complaint or that complaint is not maintainable. Contention that complaint is bad for non-joinder of ICICI Bank and as such, it is liable to be dismissed, cannot be accepted in view of the authority Smt. Savita Garg Vs. The Director, National Heart Institute-2004(2)CPC-675(SC)(CP).<br /> 9. Question that now arises is as to what relief be accorded to the complainant under the circumstances. As per the policy, copy of which is Ex.R.4, vehicle was insured for a sum of Rs. 30,068/-. Opposite parties had deputed Er. Rakesh Kumar Gupta as Surveyor. Copy of his report is Ex.R.1 and his affidavit is Ex.R.3. Loss to the vehicle has been assessed by him as Rs. 30,068/- on total loss basis. After deducting the wreck value of Rs. 8,500/-, net loss has been assessed as Rs. 21,568/-. Surveyor's report is an important piece of document. It cannot be brushed aside without sufficient reasoning as has been held by the Hon'ble National Commission in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kamal Nayan-2007(1)CLT-112. Complainant offered Rs. 12,000/- as wreck value of the Motorcycle as is evident from the report Ex.R.1 and the affidavit Ex.R.3 of Er. Rakesh Kumar Gupta. Learned counsel for the complainant has made separate statement that complainant would retain the salvage of the Motorcycle. In these circumstances, when repudiation of the claim stands set-aside, it is a case for direction to the opposite parties to pay Rs. 18,068/- (Rs. 30,068 minus Rs. 12,000/-) to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% P.A w.e.f. 15.8.2007 (The date calculated on expiry of three months from the date of accident/information of the accident, a period required for processing the claim in an effective manner in normal course) till realization. Complainant is craving for compensation of Rs. 20,000/- for mental tension. There is no case to allow it in the face of the relief going to be accorded as above particularly in view of the authority Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Miss Bhupinder Kaur(Minor) and others-2000(2)CLT-646. <br /> 10. No other point was urged before us at the time of arguments.<br /> 11. In view of the discussion made above, complaint is accepted against the opposite parties with costs of Rs. 1,000/-. Opposite parties are directed to do as under :-<br /> ( i ) Pay Rs. 18,068/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% P.A from 15.8.2007 till payment.<br /> ( ii ) Compliance within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.<br /> 12. Copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be also consigned.<br /> <br /> Pronounced (Lakhbir Singh)<br /> 3.3.2008 President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Hira Lal Kumar)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr.Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member <br /> <br /> 'bsg' <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />