Haryana

Karnal

158/14

Sh. Naresh Panchal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Iffco -Tokio General Insurance Co. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. P.K. Maandi

08 Nov 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

                                                              Complaint No. 158 of 2014

                                                             Date of instt.  11.06.2014

                                                               Date of decision:08.11.2016

 

Naresh Panchal son of Shri Tilak Ram, resident of VPO Uchani PO Karan Lake, Karnal.

 

                                                                         ……..Complainant.

                                                Versus

 Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. HAFED Building First Floor, Sector-12, Urban Estate, Karnal through its Branch Manager.

                                                                                 …………Opposite Party.

 

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

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

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:-      Shri P.K.Mandi  Advocate for complainant.

                    Shri A.K.Vohra Advocate for opposite party.

                                     

 ORDER:

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986, on the averments that he purchased one mobile crane (Hydraulic Pick & Carry Crane) Make Indo Farm Equipments Limited bearing Engine no.CE432500184NR and Chasis no.IPHPC14000021, manufactured in the year 2014. The said vehicle was allotted Temporary Registration no.HP12T-0916 by the company at the time of delivery. Soon after the purchase, the vehicle was got insured with opposite party, vide cover note no.74063330 valid from 11.1.2014 to 10.1.2015 and premium of Rs.12291/- was paid. Lateron, he applied for getting the vehicle registered with the registration authority and after passing of the same by the competent authority permanent registration no.HR458-7413 was allotted by Registering Authority Karnal. On 17.02.2014, the vehicle was parked in the service lane near Bharat Petrol Pump within the area of village Kambohpura in an idle condition. On the intervening night of 17^th & 18^th  February, 2014, some unknown vehicle hit the said vehicle due to which the vehicle got extensive damages. On next morning, he came to know about the said accident and then he gave intimation to opposite party on the same day. Authorized Surveyor of the opposite party inspected the vehicle and prepared the estimate of damages on 19.2.2014. Necessary formalities were completed. On the asking of the authorized person of the opposite party, he got repaired the vehicle from M/s Indo Farm Equipment Limited Construction Equipment Division, EPIP Phase-II village Dhannaa Baddi, District Solan Himachala Pardesh and spent an amount of Rs.1,16,814/-vide invoice dated 4.3.2014. He also spent a sum of Rs.6600/-on Boom Plate, Crane (transportation Exp.) Rs.4000/ Boom Fitting Labour Rs.6000/-, Welding Labour Rs.4500/- and Fright Charges Rs.10,500/-. Total sum of Rs.1,47,814/- was spent on repairs of the vehicle. Thereafter, he submitted bills to Mr. Mahesh Kalra, the authorized surveyor and loss assessor of the opposite party.  However, his claim was repudiated by the opposite party, vide letter dated 19.4.2014 on the ground of non-registration of the vehicle after expiry of period of temporary registration. In fact, the vehicle was lying parked at the time of accident. Therefore, the objections of the opposite party were not sustainable. The repudiation of his claim by the opposite party was totally illegal and baseless, which amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, due to which he suffered mental pain, agony and harassment apart from financial loss.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite party, who put into appearance and filed written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint; that the complainant has not approached this forum with clean hands; that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and that complicated questions of law and facts are involved, which cannot be decided by this Forum in summary manner.

                   On merits, it has been submitted that the Temporary Registration of the vehicle expired on 10.2.2014, whereas Registration Certificate was issued on 4.3.2014, which was contravention of provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated, vide letter dated 19.4.2014. Factum of accident and damage to the vehicle in the said accident has not been denied. It has also been admitted that the surveyor was appointed, who assessed the loss and submitted report. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied.

3.                In evidence of the complainant, his affidavit EX.P1 and document Ex.P2 to P4 have been tendered.

4.                On the other hand, in evidence of the opposite party affidavit of Palvi Roy Ex.O1 and documents Ex.O2 to Ex.O9 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 complainant had purchased the mobile crane having Temporary Registration no.HP12T-0916 and got insured the same with the opposite party for the period of 11.1.2014 to 10.1.2015. The said vehicle was hit by some unknown vehicle on the intervening night of 17/18.2.2014, while lying parked in the Service Lane near Bharat Petrol Pump within the village of Kambohpura and in the said accident the same was extensively damaged. The complainant has alleged that he spent an amount of Rs.1,47,814/- on repairs of the vehicle and submitted bills and other documents to the surveyor, but his claim was illegally repudiated by the opposite party.

7.                Learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that the opposite party had insured the vehicle with the Temporary Registration number, therefore, it had no legal right to repudiate the claim on the ground that vehicle was not got permanently registered till the date of damage. It has further been argued that the vehicle was lying parked when the same was hit by some unknown vehicle, therefore, there was no violation of any provision of the Motor Vehicles Act and thus the order of repudiation by the opposite party is quite illegal and the same amounted to deficiency in service.

7.                To wriggle out the aforesaid contention, learned counsel for the opposite party contended that Temporary Registration of the vehicle was valid only for a period of one month, which expired on 10.2.2013. However, the complainant got registered the vehicle on 4.3.2013, whereas accident had taken place on the intervening night of 17/18.2.2014. Thus, on the date of accident the vehicle was not duly registered and the same was brought by the complainant on the service road, which amounted to violation of Sections 39 and 43 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 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. Therefore, the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated by the opposite parties. In support of his contention he placed reliance upon Narender Singh Versus New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Ors. 2014 (3) Apex Court Judgments 218.

8.                In Narender Singh’s case (supra) Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the provisions of Section 39 and 43 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It was held that a bare perusal of Section 39 shows that no person shall drive any motor vehicle in any public place without any registration granted by the Registering Authority in accordance with the provisions of the Act. However, according to Section 43 the owner of the vehicle may apply to the Registering Authority for Temporary Registration and a Temporary Registration mark. Such Temporary Registration is granted by the authority and the same shall be valid only for a period not exceeding one month. The proviso to Section 43 clarified with the period of one month may be extended for such further period by the Registering Authority only in a case where a temporary registration is granted in respect of chasis to which 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. It was further held that using a vehicle on the public road without 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.

9.                The proposition of law laid down in the aforediscussed authority is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. Admittedly, the complainant got insured his vehicle from 11.1.2014 to 10.1.2015. From this fact it is clear that the vehicle was purchased by the complainant on 11.01.2014. The Temporary Registration number of the vehicle allotted by the company/seller was HP12T-0916. The vehicle was hit by some unknown vehicle on the intervening night of 17/18.2.2014. As per Section 43 of the Motor Vehicles Act , the temporary registration was valid only for a period of one month. It is not in dispute that the permanent registration number was allotted to the vehicle on 4.3.2014 as HR458-7413. Thus, it is emphatically clear that on the date of accident the vehicle of the complainant was not registered with the Registering Authority and permanent registration number was not allotted. Neither the complainant has alleged nor there is evidence that he applied for permanent registration as contemplated under section 39 of the Vehicles Act or made any application for extension of temporary registration on ground of some special                 reasons before expiry of the period of validity of temporary registration. The fact remains that on the date of accident the vehicle was unregistered. The complainant himself has submitted that he had brought the vehicle to the service lane near Bharat Petrol Pump and parked the same there on the evening of 17.2.2014. This fact makes it quite clear that the vehicle was used by the complainant on the public road and parked on the service road, which was also a public road, on the evening of 17.2.2013. Therefore, use of the vehicle on the public road without registration was 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. Under such circumstances, we have no hesitation in observing that using the vehicle by the complainant on public road without registration amounted to fundamental breach of policy contract and as such the order of repudiation of the claim of the complainant on such ground cannot be termed as illegal and unjustified in any manner.

10.              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: 08.11.2016

                                                                                      (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                                         President,

                                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                             (Anil Sharma)

                               Member