DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No.95/2016
SH. Beant Singh
S/o Shri Avtar Singh
R/o WZ-1953, Rani Bagh,
New Delhi-110034
….Complainant
Versus
IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Company Ltd.,
“IFFCO Sadan”,
C-1, District Centre,
Saket, New Delhi-110017
….Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 30.03.2016
Date of Order : 26.12.2022
Coram:
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member
ORDER
President: Ms. Monika A Srivastava
The Complainant has filed the present complaint seeking an award of Rs.1,78, 988/- at 24% per annum from the date of filing of the claim till actual payment; Rs.50,000/- as damages & compensation; and Rs.25,000/- as litigation costs.
- It is stated by the Complainant that he was induced by the agent of the OP for insurance in respect of his vehicle number DL-1 CG-1943 Mitsubishi Lancer GLX D(hereinafter referred to as vehicle) and was given a policy number 88624582 on 06.08.2014 for a term of one year i.e till 29.07.2015.
- It is stated that the Complainant made a payment of Rs.4,150/- to the OP through the said agent as one time premium.
- It is stated that after the vehicle was insured, the vehicle was stolen and in this regard, the Complainant promptly registered FIR, the copy of which is annexed as annexure C along with the complaint.
- It is stated that an untraced report under S. 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was provided and is annexure D and it was accepted by the learned MM as Annexure E.
- The OP was informed about the theft on 21.01.2015 and Innovative Surveyors was appointed for investigation of the claim of the Complainant.
- The claim of the Complainant was repudiated vide letter dated 27.03.2015 stating that vehicle’s registration got expired on 08.06.2014 due to which the above referred vehicle was not road worthy. It is stated by the Complainant that it was within the knowledge of the OP at the time of insurance and at the time of acceptance of the premium that the vehicle registration had got expired.
- It is stated by him that at no point of time he was informed that for successful claim the vehicle should be duly registered. It is stated by him that act of the OP is wrong unlawful and arbitrary as he was misrepresented by the agent and representative of the OP that the vehicle was insurable and now in an illegal manner the claim of the Complainant has been declined. It is stated that the OP is indulging in unfair practices.
- It is further stated by the Complainant that on account of illegal and unlawful act of the OP, the Complainant is suffering losses and therefore he is entitled to be compensated.
- Per Contra, the OP, in its reply have taken the preliminary objection that the Complainant has prima facie failed to establish his case or demonstrate any deficiency on the part of the op therefore the complaint is not maintainable. It is stated that there is no fault on part of the OP in repudiating the claim of the Complainant. It is for the stated that without prejudice the liability of the OP cannot be beyond the insured declared value (IDV) which is Rs 1,78,988/-.
- It is stated that the claim of the Complainant was rightly repudiated as the vehicle was neither having a valid registration number nor got the same renewed its registration expired on 08.06.2014 and as per section 39,41(3),(7),(8) &(10) and S. 56 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with provisions of Motor Vehicles Rules 1989 in absence of a valid registration, the insurance contract between the parties is also not enforceable as a valid registration is a sine qua non for the enforcement of the insurance contract.
- It is further stated that as per general exception condition number 3(a) of the policy schedule of the insurance contract between the parties “the company shall not be liable under this policy in respect of(3) any accidental loss damage and/or liability cost sustained or incurred whilst the vehicle insured herein is (a) Being used otherwise than in accordance with the “limitations as to use”. It is further stated that the cover note issued to the complainant vis-à-vis the subject vehicle insurance categorically states “ the benefit under the policy will not be payable unless the policy is endorsed with proper registration number of the vehicle within a maximum period of 7 days from the date and time of registration of the vehicle”. Thus the vehicle was supposed to get its registration renewed and endorsed within 7 days of the issuance of the insurance but the same was not done therefore, on the date of incident there was no valid and enforceable insurance contract.
- It is further stated that as per the statement of the son of the Complainant given to the surveyor, the Complainant had been driving the vehicle in blatant violation of the statutory provisions of the motor vehicles act 1988 without registration. The report of investigation is attached as annexure 1 and 2. It is stated that no agent will make a commitment which is contrary to law or statutory requirements.
- It is reiterated that the repudiation of the claim of the Complainant was justified and there is absolutely no negligence or deficiency on the part of the OP and the Complainant is trying to cover his own negligence.
The Complainant has filed his rejoinder and both the parties have filed their respective evidence as well as written submissions. This Commission has gone through the entire material on record.
It is an established precedent that the insurance cannot be granted when the vehicle is operated without valid registration therefore, the claim has been rightly repudiated. However, it is also seen that the insurance cover is granted by the OP after the valid registration for the vehicle was already over. It is also seen from the record of the case that the insurance cover dates 06.08.2014 and the insurance commences on 30.07.2014 till 29.07.2015 whereas the registration of the said vehicle expired on 08.06.2014therefore, this Commission is of the view that OP is deficient in its services by issuing insurance cover for a vehicle which did not have a valid registration at that time of granting insurance. The OP is directed to compensate the complainant for a sum of Rs. 20,000/- within two months from the date of receipt of the order failing which interest @ 5% p.a from the date of the order till its realization.
File be consigned to the record room and order be uploaded on the website.
