Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/49/2019

Gurmeet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

Vishal Gupta Adv. & Ankit Gupta Adv.

07 Nov 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	49 of 2019
Date  of  Institution	:	29.01.2019
Date   of   Decision	:	07.11.2019

 

 

 

 

Gurmeet Singh s/o Avtar Singh, R/o H.No.2016, Sector 41-C, Chandigarh.

 

             ……..Complainant

 

Versus

 

1]  Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd., through its Managing Director, IFFCO Tower-II, Plot NO.3, Sector 29, Gurugram, Haryana 122001

2^nd Address: - IFFCO Sadan, C-1, District Center, Saket, New Delhi.

 

2]  Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd., through its Branch Manager, Plot No.2-B & C, 3^rd Floor, IFFCO Complex, Madhya Marg, Sector 28-A, Chandigarh.

 

3]  Modern Automobiles through its Manager, 4 MW, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh.

 

4]  Surinder Pal Goyal (Surveyor) O/o Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd., Plot No.2-B & C, 3^rd Floor, IFFCO Complex, Madhya Marg, Sector 28-A, Chandigarh.

 

………. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN        PRESIDENT

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA    MEMBER

           

Argued By:

Sh.Ankit Gupta, Adv. for complainant.

Sh.J.P.Nahar, Adv. for OPs No.1 & 2.

Sh.Satpal Dhamija, Adv. for Opposite Party No.3.

Opposite Party NO.4 exparte.

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

         Briefly stated, the complainant purchased Maruti Dzire VDI car on 31.10.2017 and got it insured with OPs No.1 & 2 vide policy Ann.C-1 valid from 31.10.2017 to 30.10.2018.  The said insurance policy of the car was renewed further by the OPs against its temporary number for the period from 31.10.2018 to 30.10.2019 vide policy Ann.C-5.  It is averred that during the subsistence of the insurance cover, on 2.11.2018 at around 1.30 AM, the complainant along with his brother in law was travelling from Mohali to Chandigarh, when the car of complainant reached near Badheri barrier, one stray animal suddenly came in front of the car of the complainant and accidently the car of the complainant struck against the tree on roadside and got badly damaged. The matter was reported to police whereupon DDR No.3, dated 2.11.2018 was registered by Police Post Palsora, Chandigarh (Ann.C-6).  Thereafter, the damaged car was taken to Opposite Party No.3 for carrying out necessary repairs and the insurance company was also intimated, whereupon the Opposite Parties appointed a Surveyor i.e. Opposite Party No.4, who has been supplied with all requisite documents as desired along with repair estimate prepared by Opposite Parties NO.1 & 2 (Ann.C-7).  It is alleged that the Opposite Party No.3 could not start the repair work on the damaged car of the complainant as Opposite Party No.4/Surveyor had not given them the approval to do so.  Left with no alternative and having spent two months waiting for the approval & repair, the complainant took his car from Opposite Party No.3 and got it repaired at his own expenses from Hi-Tek Motorz Pvt. Ltd., Indl.,Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh and incurred an expenditure of Rs.1,35,912/- (Ann.C-8).  Thereafter, when the complainant approached OPs No.1 & 2 to enquire about the status of his claim, he has been informed that his claim has been repudiated vide letter dated 10.1.2019 on the ground that the temporary registration of the vehicle had expired on 30.11.2017, and the vehicle was not registered in accordance with chapter IV of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 at the time of accident.  It is stated that at the time of issuance of renewed insurance policy in respect of the car in question of the complainant, it was having temporary number and it was in the complete knowledge of the Opposite Parties while issuing the insurance cover.  Hence, alleging the said repudiation as illegal and deficiency in service, this complaint has been filed. 

 

2]       The OPs No.1 & 2 have filed reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that the temporary registration certificate of the vehicle in question expired on 30.11.2017 and getting the permanent registration certificate of the vehicle was the legal responsibility of the complainant.   It is stated that the complainant has neither applied for permanent registration certificate of the vehicle in question at any point of time, nor deposited the necessary fees for the same and plied the vehicle without any registration certificate against temporary number.  It is submitted that even after renewal of the insurance policy, the complainant made no efforts to get the vehicle registered with concerned Registering Authority.  It is further submitted that the claim of the complainant has rightly been repudiated by the answering Opposite Parties as per terms & conditions of the insurance policy vide letter dated 10.1.2019 which is fully justified and legally sustainable (Ann.OP-1 & 2/3).  Denying other allegations and pleading no deficiency in service, the Opposite Parties NO.1 & 2 have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

         Opposite Party No.3 has also filed reply stating that the car in question, after the accident, was brought to their workshop for accidental repairs on 9.11.2018 where it was inspected and accordingly, estimate of repair dated 9.11.2018 was prepared (Ann.C-7).  It is stated that although the car was insured, but OPs No.1 & 2 repudiated the claim on account of non-approval by Opposite Party No.4/Surveyor, hence the repair work could not be completed and the car was taken back by the complainant on 23.11.2018.  It is stated that the complainant has no grouse against answering OP-3, therefore, it is prayed that the complaint qua Opposite Party No.3 be dismissed. 

         Opposite Party No.4 did not turn up despite service of notice, hence it was proceeded exparte vide order dated 12.3.2019.

 

3]       Rejoinder has been filed by the complainant thereby controverting the assertions of Opposite Parties No.1 & 2.

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the entire record.

 

6]       Admittedly, the car of the complainant i.e. Maruti Dzire VDI, purchased on 31.10.2017 got insured with OPs No.1 & 2 vide policy Ann.C-3 valid from 31.10.2017 to 30.10.2018 and the said policy was renewed further by the OPs against its temporary number for the period from 31.10.2018 to 30.10.2019 vide policy Ann.C-5.  It is undisputed that the said car, during the currency of insurance cover, got damaged and the claim lodged by the complainant with Opposite Parties stand repudiated. 

 

7]      As per record the complainant’s vehicle got damaged when a stray animal suddenly came in front of it, while it was being driven by the complainant, on his way back from Mohali to Chandigarh, near Badheri barrier, as the car struck against the tree on roadside.   

 

8]       Reply filed by Opposite Party No.3 corroborates the fact that the complainant after submitting the vehicle for necessary repairs to the authorised service centre i.e. Opposite Party No.3, get it back without any repairs and got it repaired from another private agency where he claimed to have spent an amount of Rs.1,35,912/- (Ann.C-8).  For this the complainant explained that since the insurance company/OPs No.1 & 2 did not approve his claim, as per the repair estimate i.e. Rs.3,01,262/- (Ann.C-7), so he was forced to get his car repaired at his own from other agency.

 

9]       Negating the version of the complainant, the Opposite Parties NO.1 & 2 submitted that the claim of the complainant was not approved since the vehicle in question was not permanently registered with the concerned authorities at the time of accident, which is not only the violation of Policy terms & conditions, but also violation of the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.  Also claimed that they are fully protected under the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled as Narinder Singh vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., III(2014) ACC 890 (SC).

 

10]      After giving thoughtful consideration to the submissions of both the parties and keeping in view the record available on file, we are of the considered opinion that the insurance company i.e. OPs NO.1 & 2 cannot absolutely absolve themselves from their liability towards the complainant since they owe the liability to indemnify in case there is any loss to the insured vehicle.

 

11]      It is very clear from the record that the vehicle when was purchased in the year 2017 bearing Temporary Registration No.CH-09-5804(T), got insured with OPs NO.1 & 2 vide policy Ann.C-3 for the period from 31.10.2017 to 30.10.2018 against Engine-Chassis No.3085484-113131.  After the expiry of the validity period of the said policy on 30.10.2018, the OPs No.1 & 2 renewed the said policy for further period from 31.10.2018 to 30.10.2019 again against its Temporary Registration only and during subsistence of said renewed policy, the accident occurred.  Apt to record that as per the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, it is mandatory to get the permanent registration certificate after the expiry of temporary registration number.    

 

12]      From the record, it is clear that the complainant till the date of the accident of the vehicle in question, had not applied for permanent registration number with the concerned Registering Authority and plied the vehicle against temporary registration number only, which is clear cut violation of the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 

 

13]      Simultaneously, it has also been observed that the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, intentionally and knowing fully well that the vehicle in question is carrying temporary registration number, did not bother to demand for the permanent registration number of the vehicle, at the time of renewing the policy for further period of one year. Had it been checked and demanded at that instance, then the complainant would have not been in a position to seek claim from the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 and would have also not dared to ply the vehicle without permanent registration certificate for further period.   

 

14]      From the above peculiar facts & circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that in the present case there is clear cut contributory negligence on the part of both the parties i.e. OPs No.1 & 2 and complainant; as both of the parties remained negligent in performing their part of duty.  It is reiterated that the Opposite Parties cannot absolve themselves absolutely from the liability as they renewed the policy taking due premium thereon. In this view of the matter, we deem it proper to grant 50% of the repair cost incurred by the complainant, to be paid by Opposite Parties NO.1 & 2. Accordingly, the present complaint is partly allowed with directions to the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 to pay an amount of Rs.67,956/- to the complainant being 50% of the repair cost (Rs.1,35,912/-) so incurred by him and also to pay him Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses. There is no order as to compensation. 

 

         This order shall be complied with by Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which they shall be liable to pay additional compensatory cost of Rs.15,000/- apart from the above relief.   

 

        Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties, free of cost. File be consigned to record room.

Announced

7^th November, 2019                                                                Sd/-

                                                                   (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

                                                                    (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER