Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/14/619

Harminder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Iffco Tokio Gen.Ins. - Opp.Party(s)

Divjot Kaur

31 Mar 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

                                                          C.C.No.619 of 08.09.2014

                                                          Date of Decision: 31.03.2015

Harvinder Singh son of Shri Palwinder Singh, resident of House No.5766, Street No.16, Kalgidhar Mark, New Shimlapuri, District Ludhiana. 

                                                                                      … Complainant

                                             Versus

1.Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Company Limited, 4^th & 5^th Floor, Iffco Tower, Plot No.3, Sector 29, Gurgaon-122001, through its Director/Managing Director.

2.Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited, Sohan Singh Complex, Shastri Nagar, Near Railway Crossing, Ludhiana, through its Branch Manager.

3.Stan Wheels Pvt. Ltd., Threekay Road, Near Ayali Chowk, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana, through its Director/Managing Director.

                                                                   …             Opposite Parties

 

          Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986

 

Quorum     Sh. R.L.Ahuja, President.

                   Sh.Sat Paul Garg, Member.

Ms.Babita, Member.

                                                        

Present       Smt.Divjot Kaur, Adv. for complainant.

                   Sh.Vyom Bansal, Adv. for OP1 and OP2.

                   Sh.R.K.Bhandari, Adv. for OP3.

 

                                                ORDER

R.L. AHUJA, PRESIDENT

1.                Present complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after in short to be referred as ‘Act’) has been filed by Sh.Harvinder Singh(hereinafter in short to be referred as ‘complainant’) against Iffco- Tokio General Insurance Company Limited and others (herein-after in short to be referred as ‘OPs’)- directing them to clear the claim of the complainant and to return an amount of Rs.1,82,000/- paid by the complainant to the service centre for the repair of his car alongwith interest @12% p.a. from the date of payment to the service centre besides Rs.2 lakh as compensation and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses and other benefits to the complainant.

2.                Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant purchased one Maruti Ritz LDI BS IV car bearing registration No.PB-10-Eg-4187, Chassis No.MA3FDEB1S00412882, Engine No.D13A1947507, colour S.White vide invoice No.852 dated 28.11.2012 for Rs.5,46,261/- from OP3 which was got insured by the OP3 itself from OP1 and 2 w.e.f.28.11.2012 to 27.11.2013 vide policy No.88229573 dated 28.11.2012 upon charging of Rs.15,769/- towards the premium. On 13.9.2013, the abovesaid car met with an accident and was fully damaged. The complainant immediately informed the Ops about the said accident and damage of the car and lodged his insurance claim with the OP1 and OP2. The surveyor of OP1 and OP2 told the complainant that at present the complainant has not got registered his car with the District Transport Office and has yet not obtained registration certificate of the said car, as such, the complainant first should get the vehicle registered with District Transport Office and should get the registration certificate and thereafter, the complainant should lodge a fresh insurance claim and then, his claim will be definitely honoured, as the vehicle is still under the insurance period. On the said representation and assurance, the complainant withdrew his claim and applied to the OP3 for the registration certificate of his abovesaid car and paid an amount of Rs.40,000/- vide receipt No.1728 dated 13.8.2013. After obtaining the registration certificate, the complainant lodged a fresh insurance claim with the OP1 and OP2 and their surveyor assured the complainant that now the insurance claim of the complainant will be honoured. Thereafter, on asking of the surveyor of the OP1 and OP2, the complainant got repaired his car from the service centre of the car company with the assurance that they will honour/clear the claim and will return back the amount. The car was repaired from Gulzar Motors(P) Ltd. G.T.Road, Ludhiana after spending an amount of Rs.1,82,000/- by the complainant from his own pockets. Thereafter, the complainant requested the Ops to return the amount of repair incurred by him on the repair of his car on the assurance of the Ops but the Ops lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other and ultimately, on 26.4.2014, the Ops have rejected the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 26.4.2014 on the false pretext of ‘No Claim’. Such act and conduct of OPs for rejecting the genuine claim of the complainant is claimed to be deficiency in service on their part by the complainant. Hence, this complaint.

3.                Upon notice of the complaint, OPs were duly served and appeared through their respective counsels and filed their separate written replies.

4.                OP1 and OP2 filed their written reply through their counsel  Sh.Vyom Bansal, Advocate, in which, it has been submitted in the preliminary objections and factual submission that the vehicle of the complainant i.e. Maruti Ritz LDI was insured by the answering Ops vide policy No.88229573(82145501) valid for 28.11.2012 till 27.11.2013 by the answering OP. The complainant had firstly intimated the loss of insured vehicle on 13.9.2013 and then withdrew the claim on 20.9.2013. The complainant then again intimated the claim on 10.10.2013 and at that time, submitted the date of loss as 25.9.2013. A letter written by the complainant narrating all the above facts was also written by the complainant. Upon receipt of the information of the loss from the complainant on 10.10.2013, an independent surveyor namely G.S.Sohal & Co. was deputed to assess the loss caused to car in question, who had personally inspected the vehicle, took the photographs and took the documents and thereafter, prepared his report dated 26.3.2014 under his signatures and submitted the same with the answering Ops alongwith documents and annexures attached with the report. After the receipt of the aforesaid survey report and after scrutinizing the documents placed in the claim file and after applying the mind by the officials of the answering Ops, it was observed that the vehicle was purchased on 28.11.2012 and had the temporary registration valid for one month and the complainant had not got the vehicle registered even after expiry of the temporary registration. The present loss took place when the vehicle was not registered with the District Transport Office and thus, the claim of the complainant was found not payable one as complainant had violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy as well as section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the claim of the complainant was repudiated by the competent authority of the company after proper application of mind and repudiation letter dated 26.4.2014 was duly posted to the complainant absolving the liability of answering Ops. The claim of the complainant was treated as ‘No Claim’ while observing “the temporary registration of the vehicle had expired at the time of accident, registration certificate is registered on 15.9.2013. This is in contravention of provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act” and the violation of Section 3 of 1(a) “the owner driver is the registered owner of the vehicle insured herein”. The complainant is not entitled to claim compensation for damages, when the vehicle was being driven on the date of the accident without any valid registration and in contravention of section 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The complainant has not furnished any satisfactory explanation for not making an application for permanent registration of the insured vehicle for such a long time after the purchase and thus, cannot be granted any relief for his own intentional breach of Motor Vehicles Act and the terms of the policy. The present complaint is not maintainable in any form before this Hon’ble Forum as no cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Forum because neither the damage to the vehicle nor the repair of the vehicle has been done within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Forum. The complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act and the terms of the contract of insurance have to be strictly construed and as per which, the present claim of the complaint deserves a dismissal being outside the scope of terms of policy. On merits, similar pleas were taken as taken in the preliminary objections and at denying any deficiency in service and all other allegations of the complainant being wrong and incorrect, answering OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

5.                OP3 filed the written reply through Sh.R.K.Bhandari, Advocate, in which, it has been submitted in the preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form as there is no pitch or substance in the baseless and imaginary accusations of the complainant. The complainant is bound by his own act and conduct and affirmations hence, barred from filing the complaint. The complainant is guilty of his own act and conduct as he had not got the car registered with the office of D.T.O.Ludhiana in time and it was only as afterthought that after his car was damaged that he applied for registration of the said car on 15.9.2013. The OP1 and OP2 had rejected the claim of the complainant as ‘No Claim’ as the complainant did not abide by the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. There is no alleged illegality, deficiency, negligence of unfair trade practice by the answering OP and no mental tension, harassment or agony etc., has been caused by it to the complainant . Rather, the complainant is liable to pay adequate compensation for dragging it into false litigation initiated against the answering OP unnecessarily. The complaint is not sustainable in law as the car met with accident and was fully damaged as per the admission of the complainant. The complainant is making hue and cry unnecessarily. The car of the complainant suffered the damage only due to negligence and carelessness of the complainant. The compensation, if any, can be sought only from the insurance company i.e. OP1 and OP2 and not from the answering OP. No cause of action ever accrued to the complainant against the answering OP as the complainant has failed to establish the deficiency of the answering OP. This Hon’ble Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the alleged dispute involved in the complaint as the dispute so raised by the complainant in the present complaint is manifestly outside the purview of the said Act and in any event, the Act is in addition to & not in derogation of the provisions of the Act. The complainant has neither been properly verified at all nor it is supported by mandatory affidavit in support thereof, hence it has no evidentiary value in the eyes of law. On merits, it is submitted that the complainant is guilty of his own act and conduct as he had not got the car registered with the office of D.T.O. Office, Ludhiana in time and got it belatedly registered only after it met with an accident. Obviously, it was only as after-thought that he applied for registration of the said car to extract insurance amount on false facts. Further, it is self-admitted by the complainant that he never brought the vehicle to the answering OP so in case as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the insured vehicle can be got repaired at any place, so how can the complainant point any accusing finger on the answering OP. The allegations of the complainant are childish and have evidence to stand upon, so no relief can be sought by the complainant against the answering OP. Otherwise, similar pleas were taken as taken in the preliminary objections and at the end, denying any deficiency in service and all other allegations of the complainant being wrong and incorrect, answering OP made prayer for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

6.                Learned counsel for the complainant in order to prove the case of the complainant adduced evidence by placing on record affidavit of complainant as Ex.CA, in which, he has reiterated all the allegations made by him in the complaint. Further, the learned counsel for complainant has also relied upon documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8.

7.                On the contrary, learned counsel for the OP1 and OP2 in order to rebut the evidence of complainant, adduced evidence by placing on record affidavit Ex.RA of Sh.Pallavi Roy, its Vice President, in which, he has reiterated all the contents of written reply filed by OP1 and OP2 and refuted the case of the complainant. Further, learned counsel for the OP1 and OP2 has placed on record the documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R5.

8.                Similarly, learned counsel for the OP3 in order to rebut the evidence of complainant, adduced evidence by placing on record affidavit Ex.RA2 of Sh.Mukesh Kumar, its Accountant, in which, he has reiterated all the contents of written reply filed by OP2 and refuted the case of the complainant.

9.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

10.              Learned counsel for the complainant has filed the written arguments, in which, he has reiterated all the contents of the complaint and also made reference of the documents relied upon by the complainant in his evidence and further, it has been submitted that the OP1 and OP2 had taken the false plea to dislodge the claim of the complainant on the ground that the complainant had violated the terms and conditions of the policy, rather at the time of issuance of policy, no terms and conditions as alleged by the Ops were supplied or handed over to the complainant. Moreover, on the cover note, there is nowhere mentioned that the insurance policy is subject to any terms and conditions. As such, the terms and conditions are not binding on the complainant. Moreover, the insurance policy is a contract of indemnification and the insurance company is liable to indemnify the complainant, in case, any loss is occurred. In the present case also, at the time of accident, the vehicle of the complainant was fully insured with the OP1 and OP2, as such, they are fully liable to indemnify the complainant for the loss suffered by him and the Ops cannot take the plea that the vehicle was not got registered with the District Transport Office at the time of loss. Further, learned counsel for the complainant has relied upon judgment titled as Bharti Axa General Insurance Company Limited vs. Venus-2012(1)CPJ-207(Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh)

11.              On the other hand, learned counsel for the Op1 and OP2 has filed the written arguments, in which, he has reiterated all the contents of the written reply filed by the OP1 and OP2 and rebutted the allegations of the complainant and it has been specifically submitted that the temporary registration of the vehicle had expired at the time of accident and thus, the complainant had violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy as well as Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and thus, the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated by the competent authority of the company. Further, learned counsel for the OP1 and OP2 has relied upon judgments titled as Narinder Singh v. New India Assurance Company Limited and others-2014(4(RCR)Civil-272(S.C.); Bharti Axa General Insurance Company vs. B.A.Lokesh Kumar-Revision Petition No.1834 of 2012-decided on 25.7.2013(N.C.) and Sant Ram vs. New India Assurance Company-First Appeal No.275 of 2011-deicded on 16.10.2012(Himachal Pradesh State Commission).

12.              On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP3 has contended that it is proved on record that the complainant had not got the car registered with the office of D.T.O, Ludhiana in time at the time of accident and as such, he did not abide by the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. No specific allegation has been levelled against the OP3 by the complainant in the present complaint. Further, the car of the complainant was insured with the OP1 and OP2 and relief, if any, can be sought by the complainant from the OP1 and OP2 and not from the OP3 and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP3. .

13.              We have gone through the written arguments alongwith judgments filed by the learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned counsel for the OP1 and OP2 and have also considered the rival contention of the learned counsel for the OP3 and have also gone through the record on the file very carefully.

14.              Perusal of the record reveals that it is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant had purchased the vehicle in question i.e. Maruti Ritz LDI BS IV car bearing registration No.PB-10-EG-4187 vide invoice No.852 dated 28.11.2012 for Rs.5,46,261/-Ex.C1 from OP3 which was insured with the OP1 and OP2 vide Certificate cum policy schedule Ex.C2 which was valid w.e.f.28.11.2012 to 27.11.2013 on payment of premium. Further, it is a proved fact on record that the vehicle of the complainant met with an accident on 13.9.2013 and the claim was lodged by the complainant with the OP1 and OP2 which was later on withdrawn by the complainant and thereafter, another claim was lodged by the complainant with the OP1 and OP2. As per the allegations of the complainant that he had repaired his vehicle from Gulzar Motors (P) Ltd, G.T.Road, Ludhiana and had paid Rs.1,82,000/-. However, the claim of the complainant was repudiated as ‘No Claim’ by the OP1 and Op2 vide their letter dated 26.4.2014 Ex.C8(Ex.R5) on the ground that the complainant could not produce the permanent registration certificate of the vehicle and further, the temporary registration of the vehicle had expired at the time of accident, registration certificate was registered on 15.9.2013 which is in contravention of provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act.

15.                        During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the complainant has not denied the fact that on the date of accident, the vehicle of the complainant was not covered with permanent registration.

16.                       Section 39 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 says that no person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of 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 the 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. Therefore, the complainant was not competent even to drive the aforesaid vehicle on the road at the time of accident and thus, he had violated and breached the provisions of law and violation of law itself will take it beyond the protection of the policy. The complainant cannot take the advantage of his own wrong. Further, Section 43 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides that the owner of the vehicle may apply to the registering authority for temporary registration and a 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. Further we find force from the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the Ops during the course of arguments titled as Narinder Singh v. New India Assurance Company Limited and others-2014(4(RCR)Civil-272(S.C.); Bharti Axa General Insurance Company vs. B.A.Lokesh Kumar-Revision Petition No.1834 of 2012-decided on 25.7.2013(N.C.) and Sant Ram vs. New India Assurance Company-First Appeal No.275 of 2011-deicded on 16.10.2012(Himachal Pradesh State Commission).

17.               In view of the above discussion, we hereby dismiss the complaint of the complainant being devoid of any merit. Copy of order be made available to the parties free of costs. File be completed and consigned to record room.

 

(Babita)                (Sat Paul Garg)              (R.L.Ahuja)

 Member                 Member                        President  

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:31.03.2015

Gurpreet Sharma.