Date of Filing      : 20.12.2022

                                                                                                                                     Date of Disposal : 21.08.2023

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

THIRUVALLUR

 BEFORE  TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, M.A.,M.L, Ph.D (Law)                                        .…. PRESIDENT

                 THIRU.P.VINODH KUMAR., B.Sc., BL.,                                                                           …….MEMBER-I

                 THIRU.P.MURUGAN,  M.COM.,ICWA (Inter),B.L.,                                                       ......MEMBER-II

CC. No.02/2023

THIS MONDAY, THE 21^st DAY OF AUGUST 2023

1.Mr.M.Muthukrishnan,

   S/o.M.Parthasarathy,

   No.40, Chetty Street, Uthukottai,

   Thiruvallur, Tamil Nadu 602 026.

2.Mrs.Padmalatha,

    W/o.Muthukrishnan,

    No.40, Chetty Street, Uthukottai,

    Thiruvallur, Tamil Nadu 602 026.                                                   ……Complainants. 

                                                                                 //Vs//

1.IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Co., Ltd.,

   Rep. by its Authorized Signatory,

   At No.“IFFCO Sadan”,

   C-1, District Center, Saket,

   New Delhi -17.

2. IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Co., Ltd., (Service Branch)

   Rep. by its Authorized Signatory,

   IFFCO Bhawan, 4^th Floor,

   128, Habibullah Road, T.Nagar, Chennai 17.

3.Shri Ram Auto Finance,

Rep. by its Authorized Signatory,

No.42/2, Nehru Bazaar Street,

Uthukottai, Thiruvallur District.                                                       …..Opposite parties.

Counsel for the complainant                                         :   M/s.A.H.Srikanth, Advocate.

Counsel for the opposite parties 1 & 2                        :   M/s.L.Gopi, Advocate.

Counsel for the 3^rd opposite party                                :   M/s.K.Rajan, Advocate.

This complaint is coming before us on various dates and finally on 04.08.2023 in the presence of M/s.A.H.Srikanth, counsel for the complainant and M/s.L.Gopi counsel for the opposite parties 1 & 2 and M/s.K.Rajan, counsel for the 3^rd opposite party and upon perusing the documents and evidences of the both sides this Commission delivered the following:

ORDER

PRONOUNCED BY TMT. S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, PRESIDENT

2. This complaint has been filed by the complainants u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in service against the opposite parties in repudiating the claim of insurance along with a prayer to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of complainants’ son death i.e. on 30.11.2021 and to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainants along with cost of the proceedings to the complainants.

Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-

3. It was the case of the complainants that their son M.Shyam Sundar purchased BAJAJ PLATINA 110CC ESWDBS6 Motor Vehicle from the 3^rd opposite party for a sale consideration of Rs.58,000/- with Engine No.PFXWMG00505 and Chassis No.MD2B77AXXMWG04695 and with registration bearing No.TNNEW0505 on 31.10.2021. At the time of purchase, the vehicle was insured with the 1^st opposite party and 2^nd opposite party being its serving office and the period of insurance was from 12.11.2021 to 11.11.2026 with gross premium payable at Rs.4576/- inclusive of life coverage of the owner/driver at Rs.15,00,000/- and also collected a premium of Rs.350/- inclusive of other liabilities pertaining to the vehicle No.TNNEW0505.  In total the opposite party had collected a gross premium of Rs.4576/- from the complainants’ son on 31.10.2021. The complainants’ son on 30.11.2021 who was driving the vehicle was washed away in the flood along with his vehicle bearing No.TNNEW0505 and was found dead on 30.11.2021.  The 1^st complainant lodged a complaint with the Periyapalayam Police Station on 30.11.2021 and FIR was registered in Crime No.537/2021.  The complainants being the legal heirs of the complainants’ son made a claim with the opposite parties submitting all the documents pertaining to the vehicle and the personal details claiming a sum of Rs.15,00,000/-.  But they were shocked on declining the claim vide reply dated 27.09.2022 by the 2^nd opposite party stating that the vehicle was not registered with the concerned authority (RTO) and the 1^st complainant was not entitled for the life coverage of the complainants’ son under the policy No.MM516674. The opposite parties 1 & 2 have declined and rejected the claim which was against the principles of natural justice and equity. Even as per the policy the time stipulated under policy states that “This policy of new vehicle NCB with age of vehicle “0” was issued as a brand new vehicle and if it is otherwise, the benefits under the present policy stand forfeited for this new vehicle TN/NEW/0505.  For internal reference only client needs to contact nearest IFFO-TOKIO branch for inclusion of registration number issued by RTO within 60 day of policy.  Policy was issued on 12.11.2021 and the registration time of the vehicle existed up to 11.01.2022 during such period, the complainants’ son unfortunately met with the mishap. It was submitted that the vehicle bearing engine No. No.PFXWMG00505 was registered with the concerned authority within the stipulated period of 60 days from the date of purchase from 12.11.2021 as per the terms and conditions stipulated in the insurance policy and number was registered and assigned on 22.12.2021 bearing No.TN-20-DC-9162.  Hence the complainants had every legal right to claim the insurance and the opposite parties are liable to pay the compensation amount of Rs.15,00,000/- to the complainants under the insurance policy No.MM516674. Thus the complainants sent a legal notice to the opposite parties 1 & 2 for which the 2^nd opposite party gave vexatious and frivolous reply dated 25.11.2022 without any basis denying the liability. Thus aggrieved by the act of the opposite parties the present complaint was filed to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of complainants’ son death i.e. on 30.11.2021 and to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainants along with cost of the proceedings to the complainants.

The crux of the defence put forth by the opposite parties 1 & 2:-

4. The opposite parties 1 & 2 filed version disputing the complaint allegations contending inter alia that the complaint was not at all maintainable in law and facts. It was submitted that the vehicle bearing engine No.PFXWMG00505, Chassis No.MD2B77XXMW04695 was taken delivery by the complainants’ son on 31.10.2021 from the 3^rd opposite party.  Thereafter he was using the vehicle without registering it with the concerned RTO.  The vehicle was registered only on 22.12.2021 with RTO, Thiruvallur without disclosing the demise of Mr.Shyam Sundar.  As per section 39 of Motor Vehicle Act, the vehicle could not be used in any public place without obtaining a Registration Certificate from the competent Road Transport Authority. As per the terms and conditions of the policy, the risk assumed under personal accident cover could be invoked only if the insured/owner/rider was the registered owner in the Books of concerned RTO on the date of occurrence of mishap.  The vehicle was not registered in the name of Mr.Shayam Sundar as on 31.10.2021 as required under the Motor Vehicle Act and he has used the vehicle from 31.10.2021 without any type of registration certificate till his last breath. Therefore the mandatory requirement to enforce the risk coverage was not complied enabling the complainants to claim any amount under the policy No.MM516674.  There was negligence on the part of 3^rd opposite party in delivering the vehicle without Registration.  It was submitted that the 3^rd opposite party was solely responsible to pay the compensation to the complainants and thus prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

The crux of the defence put forth by the 3^rd opposite party:-

5. It was admitted that the complainants’ son purchased the motor vehicle on 31.10.2021 viz., BAJAJ PLATINA 110CC ESWDBS6 for sale a consideration of Rs.58,000/- with Engine No.PFXWMG00505 and Chassis No.MD2877AXXMWG04695 with registration bearing No.TNNEW0505 from the 3^rd opposite party. At the time of purchase the vehicle was insured with the 1^st opposite party and the 2^nd opposite party being its serving office and the period of insurance was from 12/11/2021 to 11/11/2026 with gross premium payable at Rs. 4576/-. It was admitted that during such circumstances the complainants’ son on 30/11/2021 who was driving the vehicle was washed away in the flood along with his vehicle bearing No. TNNEW0505 and was found dead on 30/11/2021. It was pertinent to mention that the vehicle bearing Engine No TNNEW0505 was registered with the concerned authority within the stipulated period of 60 days from the date of purchase from 12/11/2021 as per the terms and condition stipulated in the insurance policy and number was registered and assigned on 22.12.2021 bearing No.TN-20-DC-9162 that is within a period of 60 days. Hence the complainants has every legal right to claim insurance and the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties are liable to pay the compensation amount of Rs.15,00,000/-  to the complainants under the insurance policy No. MM516674. It was submitted that the role of the 3^rd opposite party was only to deliver the vehicle after receipt of sale consideration of Rs.58,000/-, hence the 3^rd opposite party could not be held liable and no way connected for the said liability and thus the complaint to be dismissed as against the 3^rd opposite party.

6. On the side of complainants proof affidavit was filed and documents marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A16 were submitted.  On the side of opposite parties 1 &2 proof affidavit and documents marked as Ex.B1 to Ex.B3 were submitted. On the side of 3^rd opposite party proof affidavit was filed but no document filed on their side.

Points for consideration:

1. Whether the act of opposite parties 1 & 2 in repudiating the insurance claim made by the complainant for the death of their son amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and whether the same has been successfully proved by the complainants?
2. Whether the 3^rd opposite party should be held liable for the act of repudiation of insurance claim by 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties?
3. If so to what reliefs the complainant is entitled?

Point No.1&2:-

The following documents were filed on the side of complainants in support of their contentions;

1. Delivery note issued by the 3^rd opposite party dated 31.10.2021 was marked as Ex.A1;
2. Copy of insurance policy in the name of complainants’ son in policy No.MM516674 dated 12.11.2021 was marked as Ex.A2;
3. FIR No.537/2021 issued by Periyapalayam Police Authority dated 30.11.2021 was marked as Ex.A3;
4.  Post Mortem certificate of M.Shyam Sundar dated 01.12.2021 was marked as Ex.A4;
5. Investigation Report by the Sub-Inspector of Police C2, Periyapalayam Police Station, Thiruvallur District dated 02.12.2021 was marked as Ex.A5;
6. Death certificate of complainants’ son dated 01.12.2021 issued by the department of revenue administration, Velagapuram Village Panchayat dated 19.12.2022 was marked as Ex.A6;
7. Legal heirs certificate of deceased issued by the Thasildar, Uthokottai dated 07.12.2021 was marked as Ex.A7;
8. Motor Claim Form before the 2^nd opposite party was marked as Ex.A8;
9. Rejection of claim by the 2^nd opposite party dated 27.09.2022 was marked as Ex.A9;
10. Legal notice issued by the complainants to the opposite parties 1 & 2 dated 02.11.2022 was marked as Ex.A10;
11. Reply notice by the opposite parties 1 & 2 dated 25.11.2022 was marked as Ex.A11;
12. Registration Certificate dated 22.12.2021 was marked as Ex.A12;
13. Tax Invoice issued by the 3^rd opposite party dated 09.03.2022 was marked as Ex.A13;
14. Vehicle service history dated 09.03.2022 was marked as Ex.A14;
15. Letter issued by the Revenue Inspector to Thasildar, Uthokottai dated 06.12.2021 was marked as Ex.A15;
16. CD was marked as Ex.A16;

The following documents were filed on the side of opposite parties 1 & 2 in proof of their defence;

17. Authorization letter was marked as Ex.B1;
18. Letter given by the opposite parties 1 & 2 to the Assistant Registering Authority RTO Thiruvallur dated 22.03.2022 was marked as Ex.B2;
19. Reply letter from RTO Thiruvallur to 1^st opposite party dated 14.07.2022 was marked as Ex.B3;
20. Motor Claim Form given by the complainant to the opposite party dated 07.05.2021 was marked as Ex.B4;

7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the complainants and opposite parties 1 & 2 and perused the pleadings and written arguments filed by them.  The crux of the arguments adduced by the learned counsel for the complainants is that the vehicle was insured at the time of taking delivery though not registered on the date of mishap.  Subsequently the vehicle got registered and hence the insurance company ought to have paid the insured amount of Rs.15,00,000/-.  Further he submitted that a dummy registration number was issued and that within 60 days the vehicle was registered.

8. On the other hand, the opposite parties 1 & 2 contended that when there is no registration on the date of accident i.e.30.11.2021.  As per the Motor Vehicle Act Section 39, being the insurance company they are not liable to pay the amount as the Section clearly states that the vehicle without registration cannot be plied in public place.

9. On the other hand the 3^rd opposite party filed written arguments with endorsement that the same may be treated as oral arguments.  The crux of the arguments by the 3^rd opposite party is that they are not liable for payment of insurance amount as they delivered the vehicle as purchased by the complainant and it is only the insurance company who received the premium amount and to honour the claim in case of any mishap, thus they sought for the dismissal of the complaint against them.

10. We perused the entire pleadings and material evidences produced by both parties.  It is apparently seen that the vehicle though registered within 60 days as per the mandate it was registered in the name of dead person.  The complainants’ son died on 30.11.2021 and the vehicle got registered on 21.12.2021. Hence as per Law the Registration of the vehicle could not be termed as a valid registration as it was made in the name of a dead person.  Further the insurance company could be held liable only when the newly delivered unregistered vehicle possesses a valid Temporary Registration on the date of accident.  In the present case no pleadings was submitted by the complainants with respect to any temporary Registration Number though in the complaint it is seen that the vehicle was provided a number as TN/NEW/0505.  Though the said TN/NEW/0505 was found as registration mark and number in the insurance policy Ex.A2 there is no proof that it was the temporary Registration Number as Temporary Registration has to be obtained by application and  by submitting certain documents like

1. Form 20 or Application Form.
2. Form 21 i.e. Sale Certificate.
3. Form 22.
4. Insurance copy.
5. Address Proof.
6. Pollution under Control (PUC) Certificate.
7. Copy of the PAN Card etc.

Hence when there was a clear bar under section 39 of the Motor Vehicle Act for any person to ride a vehicle in any public place without Registration Certificate obtained from the competent Road Transport Authority as rightly pointed out by the 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties/Insurance Company the risk assumed under the Personal Accident Cover could not be invoked. The subsequent registration made in the name of a deceased person is a clear violation of the Motor Vehicle Act and could not ratify the earlier act of unfortunate accident occured to the complainants’ son.  Therefore, as on 30.11.2021 when the vehicle was not having any Valid Temporary Registration or Permanent Registration Certificate from the competent Road Transport Authority, the insurance company could not be fastened with any liability to pay the claim amount as the vehicle was plied in a public place against law and the terms and conditions.

11. We could find the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.5887/2021 in United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Sushil Kumar Godara dated 30.09.2021 in support of our decision wherein it has been held as follows,

11. In Narinder Singh (supra), the claim was in the context of an accident, involving a vehicle, the temporary registration of which had expired. This Court held that the insurer was not liable, and observed that:

“12. A bare perusal of Section 39 shows that no person shall drive the motor vehicle in any public place without any valid registration granted by the registering authority in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

 13. However, according to Section 43, 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. The 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 a case where a temporary registration is granted in respect of chassis 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 unforeseen circumstances beyond the control of the owner.

14. 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 6 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.”

12. In Naveen Kumar (supra), NCDRC decided a reference, to its bench, and held that:

" 9. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the reference is answered in following terms:-

 (i) If a vehicle without a valid registration is or has been used/driven on a public place or any other place that would constitute a fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of the contract of insurance even if the vehicle is not being driven at the time it is stolen or is damaged:

 (ii) If a vehicle without a valid registration is used/driven on a public place or any other place, it would constitute a fundamental breach of terms and conditions of the policy even if the owner of the vehicle has applied for the issuance of a registration in terms of S.41 of the Act before expiry of the temporary registration, but the regular registration has not been issued".

                                                                         (emphasis supplied)

 13. In the present case, the temporary registration of the respondent’s vehicle had expired on 28-07-2011. Not only was the vehicle driven, but also taken to another city, where it was stationed overnight in a place other than the respondent’s premises. There is nothing on record to suggest that the respondent had applied for registration or that he was awaiting registration. In these circumstances, the ratio of Narinder Singh (supra) applies, in the opinion of this court. That Narinder Singh (supra) was in the context of an accident, is immaterial. Despite this, the respondent plied his vehicle and took it to Jodhpur, where the theft took place. It is of no consequence, that the car was not plying on the road, when it was stolen; the material fact is that concededly, it was driven to the place from where it was stolen, after the expiry of 7 temporary registration. But for its theft, the respondent would have driven back the vehicle. What is important is this Court’s opinion of the law, that when an insurable incident that potentially results in liability occurs, there should be no fundamental breach of the conditions contained in the contract of insurance. Therefore, on the date of theft, the vehicle had been driven/used without a valid registration, amounting to a clear violation of Sections 39 and 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1986. This results in a fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of the policy, as held by this Court in Narinder Singh (supra), entitling the insurer to repudiate the policy”.

12. Thus, based on the binding decision by the Apex Court, this Commission has no other option but to hold that the opposite parties did not commit any deficiency in service in repudiating the insurance claim though it was proved that the death occured while the deceased travelled in the vehicle purchased from 3^rd opposite party and insured with the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties. Thus Points 1 & 2 answered accordingly.

Point No.3:-

13. As we have held above that the opposite parties 1 to 3 had not committed any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the complainants are not entitled any relief from the opposite parties.  Thus we answer the point accordingly.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed.  No order as to cost.

 Dictated by the President to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 21^st day of August 2023.

          -Sd-                                                                          -Sd-                                                                        -Sd-

 MEMBER-II                                            MEMBER-I                                          PRESIDENT

List of document filed by the complainant:-

List of documents filed by the opposite parties 1 & 2:-

      List of documents filed by the 3^rd opposite party:-

-NIL-

       -Sd-                                                            -Sd-                                                    -Sd-

MEMBER-II                                                MEMBER-I                                       PRESIDENT