DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                Complaint No.  258

                                                Instituted on:    01.06.2018

                                                Decided on:       11.02.2019

Sukhjeet Kaur W/O Kashmir Singh, resident of Village Khang, Tehsil Patran, District Patiala.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.     Krishna Vehicles Pvt. Ltd. Delhi Jind Road,  Near Sibia Hospital, Sangrur.

2.     Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Registered Office: Reliance Centre, 19, Wal Chand Heera Chand Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai 400 001 through its M.D.

3.     Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. SCO No.147-48, Top Floor, Sector 9-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh 160009 through its Manager.

4.     Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. SCO No.36-37, First and Second Floor, New Leela Bhawan, Patiala through its Branch Manager.

                                                        ..Opposite parties.

For the complainant  :       Shri Sandeep Goyal, Adv.

For OP No.1             :       Shri Rajinder Sharma, Adv.

For OP No.2 to 4      :       Shri Amit Goyal, Adv.

Quorum:   Vinod Kumar Gulati, Presiding Member

                Mrs.Manisha, Member.

Order by : Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member.

1.             Smt. Sukhjeet Kaur, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant purchased one Activa 3G DLX bearing chassis number ME4JF505JG7334269 and engine number JF50E73333873 from OP number 1 on 12.11.2016 through Singla Enterprises Khanauri, which was got insured by OP number 1 from Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. on 12.11.2016 under policy number 2010562312019130 upto 11.11.2017 by paying the requisite premium of Rs.1694/-.  Further case of the complainant is that the vehicle in question met with road side accident on 15.11.2016 and damaged badly.  Thereafter the surveyor of the OPs came and took all necessary documents and accordingly the complainant got the estimate of the repair cost which was said to be Rs.23,124/-.  Further case of the complainant is that the claim of the complainant was repudiated by the Ops on 3.11.2016 on the ground that the vehicle was got registered on 16.11.2016, whereas the accident took place on 15.11.2016, which is said to be illegal and without any basis.  The complainant also got served a legal notice upon the OPs, but no reply was given.

2.             Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to pay to the complainant the insurance claim amount of Rs.23,124/-  along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of accident  till realisation and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

3.             In reply of the complaint filed by OP number 1, it is admitted that the complainant had purchased the Activa in question on 12.11.2016 and the vehicle in question was got insured from Reliance General Insurance Company and the policy was issued by OP number 1. It is stated that the bills produced on the complaint are correct one.  The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied.

4.             In reply filed by Ops number 2 to 4,   legal objections are taken up on the grounds that without registration of the vehicle, the dealer cannot deliver the vehicle to purchaser,  that the complaint is not maintainable, that the complainant has no cause of action and that the complainant is estopped from filing the present complaint. On merits, it is admitted that the vehicle in question was insured with the OPs.  It is stated further that the vehicle of the complainant met with an accident on 15.11.2016 and intimation of which was given to the OPs.  The surveyor assessed the loss at Rs.6187/- as per the terms and conditions of the policy. The claim was repudiated as at the time of accident the vehicle was not having registration certificate, as such, the claim was repudiated on account of non registration of vehicle at the time of loss. The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied.

5.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-10 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP number 1 has produced Ex.OP1/A to Ex.OP1/C documents and affidavit and closed evidence. The learned counsel for OPs number 2 to 4 has produced Ex.OP2to4/1 to Ex.OP2to4/12 copies of documents and affidavits and closed evidence.

6.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and evidence produced on the file and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. None of the parties submitted written arguments.

7.             It is admitted fact that the complainant purchased one Activa 3G deluxe in question from OP number 1 on 12.11.2016, which was got insured by OP number 1 from OP number 4 by paying premium of Rs.1693/- and the vehicle in question met with an accident on 15.11.2016 and was badly damaged. Surveyor of the OPs took all the necessary documents and did not settle the claim. While going through the documents submitted by the complainant Ex.C-3, repudiation of the claim was conveyed to the complainant vide letter dated 3.12.2016 on the ground that the registration as per registration certificate is dated 16.11.2016 and thus concluded that the vehicle was not registered at the time of loss. The OPs produced on record Ex.OP2-4/3 which shows that the provisional RC issued by the Punjab Transport Department is effective from 16.11.2016 to 16.12.2016, whereas as per the record on the file, the accident of the vehicle occurred on 15.11.2016. It means that the vehicle was not having valid registration at the time of accident and the OPs in their repudiation letter dated 3.12.2016, repudiated the claim of the complainant due to breach of provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. The OPs in support of their case have submitted various law such as Narinder Singh vs New India Assurance Company Ltd. and others 2014(3) CPC 1,  New India Assurance Co. Ltd. versus Sarita Devi Kaushik 2017(1) CLT 414 and Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited versus Kishan Singh Jadaun 2016(4) CLT 419 in this connection. These laws have been gone through and found that ratio of these cases straightaway relate to the instant case.

8.             In the sequel of the above discussion and the circumstances of the case, the complaint is dismissed. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per rules.  File be indexed and consigned to record room.  

                        Pronounced.

                        February 11, 2019.

                                                        (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                           Presiding  Member

                                                                (Manisha)

                                                                  Member