Haryana

StateCommission

A/891/2015

LIBERTY VIDEOCON GENERAL INS. - Complainant(s)

Versus

KRISHAN - Opp.Party(s)

P.M.GOYAL

16 Mar 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                               

                                      First Appeal No.891 of 2015

                                      Date of Institution:15.10.2015

                                      Date of Decision: 16.03.2017

 

Liberty Videocon General Insurance Company Ltd., 10^th Floor, Tower A, Peninsula Business Park, Ganpat Rao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013.

                                                …Appellant

 

Versus

 

Krishan son of Sube Singh R/o H.No.79, VPO Nirthan, Tehsil Kharkhoda, District Sonepat.

                                                …Respondent

 

CORAM:   Mr. R.K. Bishnoi, Judicial Member

                   Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present:     Mr.Hitender Kansal, proxy counsel for Mr.P.M. Goyal, Advocate for the appellant.

None for the respondent.

 

                                       O R D E R

 

R.K. BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

It is alleged by complainant that he purchased a new car Santro GL Plus BSIV with temp. No.HR-99RZ TP-9773 from opposite party (O.P.)/appellant. Vehicle was insured by O.P.  which was valid from 26.03.2014 to 25.03.2015. Unfortunately his car met with an accident on 27.06.2014 and intimation was given to O.P. Car was got repaired form authorized workshop and be paid Rs.1,40,533/- vide invoice dated 09.12.2014. O.P. was requested to reimburse bill of Rs.1,40,533/-, but, to no avail.  O.P. be directed to pay Rs.1,40,533/- alongwith interest and compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/-.

2.      O.P. filed reply controverting his averments and alleged that after accident, surveyor was appointed and he assessed loss of Rs.55240/-. He applied for registration of vehicle on 16.08.2014 and it is clear that on the date of alleged accident vehicle was unregistered.   Claim was rightly denied and complaint be dismissed.

3.      After hearing both the parties, learned District Consumer Disputes Redresal Forum, Sonepat (In short “District Forum”) partly allowed the complaint vide impugned order dated 17.09.2015 and directed as under:-

“Accordingly, we hereby direct the  respondent to make the payment of Rs.55240/- (Rs. Fifty five thousands two hundred forty) to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 09% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till realization and also to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.3000/- (Rs. Three thousands) for rendering deficient services, for harassment and under the head of litigation expenses. With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed partly.”

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom appellant-O.P. has preferred this appeal.

5.      None has appeared on behalf of respondent for the last two hearings. It is already 3.00 P.M.  The appeal is old one and pertains to year 2015. So there is no necessity to wait any more. Arguments of learned counsel for the appellant are heard. File perused.

6.      Learned counsel for the appellant argued that complainant is not entitled for the claim as he applied registration of vehicle on 16.08.2014, whereas vehicle met with an accident on 27.06.2014. In support of his arguments he placed reliance upon the opinion of Hon’ble Supreme Court expressed in Narinder Singh Vs. New India Ass. Co. Ltd., PLR 2014 (4) Page 825 that a vehicle cannot be plied on the road without valid registration number.

7.      There is no evidence on the file showing that complainant/insured did not apply for registration of vehicle within prescribed time. From the perusal of copy of Registration Certificate (R.C.)  Ex.C-1 it is clear that same was valid from 16.07.2014 to 08.07.2029. It shows that he must have applied for registration of vehicle before this date. It was the duty of insurance company to show that he did not apply for registration of vehicle within the prescribed time. It cannot be presumed that he violated any provision of law.  Appellant cannot derive any benefit from cited case law because in that case it was well proved that insured did not apply for registration within time.

8.      As a sequel to above discussion and facts and circumstances of the case, compensation awarded by District Forum cannot be declined. Resultantly, appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed.

March 16^th,             Urvashi Agnihotri                     R.K. Bishnoi

2017                      Member                                   Judicial Member

                              Addl. Bench                             Addl. Bench