DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 285 of 5.8.2019

                                      Decided on: 1.10.2020

Ms. Priya Rani daughter of Rajinder Kumar, resident of H.No.423, Dashmesh Colony, Nabha, District Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1. Liberty General Insurance Co.Ltd. 10^th Floor, Tower-A, Peninsula Business Park, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 through its M.D.
2. Goyal Automobiles, Bahadurgarh, Patiala through its M.D.
3. Liberty General Insurance Co. Ltd., S.C.O.145-146, Sector 9-C,Chandigarh, through its Manager.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President

                                      Sh.Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member    

ARGUED BY

For the complainant:     Sh.Ankit Sood,Advocate.

For OPs No.1&3:          Sh.Amit Gupta,Advocate

For OP No.2:                 Ex-parte.             

 ORDER

                                      JASJIT SINGH BHINDER,PRESIDENT

1. This is the complaint filed by Priya Rani (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against Liberty General Insurance Co. Ltd. and ors. (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s).
2. Brief facts of the complaint are that on 1.3.2019, the complainant purchased I-20(Petrol) Hyundai car, bearing chassis No.MALBM51BLKM660992, ENGINE No.G4LAKM198297, colour Polar White, for an amount of Rs.6,10,157/- from OP No.2 by making the payment  in cash. The delivery of the vehicle was given to the complainant from Nabha. The vehicle was got insured by OP No.2 from OP No.1 vide policy No.201120050118800102100000 for the period from 1.3.2019 to 28.2.2022 (mid nights). It is averred that at the time of purchase of the said vehicle, the complainant requested OP No.2 to provide temporary registration number. The OP No.2 said that the same will be delivered within 5-6 days. The complainant again requested to OP No.2 for issuing the temporary registration number. Again OP No.2 told that the process of allotment of temporary registration number is going on and the same will be delivered within 3-4 days.
3. It is further averred that on 6.3.2019, the complainant alongwith her husband went to Shri Golden Temple, Amritsar for paying obeisance and while coming back, at about 6PM when they reached near Phillaur,  the driver of the Swift car , which was going ahead suddenly slow down his car and on seeing it, the husband of the complainant applied breaks to slow down his car, but due to short distance, the left portion of the car of the complainant hit in the right rear portion of the Swift car, as a result of which the car of the complainant over turned into the road side. A passerby took the complainant and her husband out from the car after opening seat belts. In this accident the complainant suffered head injury and her husband received multiple injuries. The car was also totally damaged. After the accident, the complainant approached the branch office of OP No.2 at Nabha.The complainant was told to take the vehicle at the showroom/workshop of OP No.2 at Patiala.
4. It is averred that the vehicle was retained in the workshop of OP No.2 for about one month but nothing was done in the matter and the complainant was asked to take back the said car. An amount of Rs.10,000/- was also charged from the complainant. It was asked to complainant to take the said car to Chandigarh, where the same was kept for about 10 days. An amount of Rs.4000/-was charged from the complainant but nothing was done. After 10 days, the complainant was told to take back the car, as no claim is payable to her.
5. It is further averred that vide letter dated 30.4.2019, OP No.3  repudiated the claim, which is totally wrong, illegal, unjust and improper. The complainant also suffered from mental agony and harassment. The complainant also sent legal notice dated 11.7.2019 requesting the OPs to pay the claim on account of total damage of the car alongwith interest @12% per annum and also to pay damages to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- The notice was duly served upon the OPs but to no effect. The act and conduct of the OPs clearly shows deficiency in service on their part. Hence this complaint with the prayer  for giving direction to the OPs to pay the amount of claim on account of total damage of the car in question alongwith interest @12% per annum  and also to pay Rs.5,00,000/- as damages for causing mental agony and  harassment to the complainant.
6. Upon notice, OPs No.1&3 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written version, whereas OP No.2 failed to come present and was accordingly proceeded against exparte .
7. The OPs No.1&3 in their  written version  took preliminary objections that the complainant obtained one insurance policy bearing No.201120050118800102100000, with effect from 1.3.2019 to 29.2.2020, covering vehicle i20(IB) with engine No.G4LAKAM198297 and chassis No.MALBM5BLKM660992 with IDV of Rs.5,79,649/-, strictly subject to the terms and conditions; that the complainant gave intimation with regard to the accidental loss to the insured vehicle on 7.3.2019.After receiving intimation, the insurance company deputed Er.Naveen Kumar, Surveyor duly licenced by IRDAI to inspect the vehicle and to access the loss. The surveyor submitted his report on 30.4.2019 assessing the loss to the tune of Rs.2,83,801/-subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. It is also mentioned in the surveyor report that the vehicle did not have temporary RC as per the confirmation of the complainant. The insurance company also deputed M/s BEE VEE investigating agency, who submitted its report on 15.4.2019.While processing the claim, the investigator had also given similar findings and observed that the insured vehicle was not registered at the time of accident. It was neither having any valid temporary registration  nor  permanent registration certificate at the time of accident. That the registration certificate was valid from 23.3.2019  i.e. after the date of loss upto 22.4.2019.Even the permanent registration certificate was applied on 23.3.2019.That on the date of loss, the vehicle was plied on the road without any registration number which is in violation of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Accordingly the claim of the complainant was denied vide letter dated 30.4.2019. That the claim of the complainant is not maintainable and is not covered under the policy  as the complainant has breached the terms and conditions of the policy. Hence the same may be dismissed.
8. On merits, the OPs  did not reiterate the facts as taken in the preliminary objections for the sake of brevity and have prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
9.  In support of the complaint, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant,Ex.C1 copy of challan/invoice dated 1.3.2019,Ex.C2 copy of insurance policy, Ex.C3 copy of provisional registration certificate, Ex.C4 copy of report od Dhillon Diagnostic centre, Ex.C5 copy of job slip of Ultimate Automobiles Ltd. dated 6.4.2019, Ex.C6 copy of road test driver of Ultimate Automobiles, Ex.C7 copy of repudiation letter, Exs.C8 to C12 original photographs showing vehicle damaged, Ex.C13 copy of legal notice,Exs.C14 to C16 postal receipts and close the evidence.
10. On the other hand, the  ld. counsel  for OPs No.1&3 tendered into evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Sanjiv P.Manager Litigation, Ex.OPB affidavit of Er.Naveen Kumar, Surveyor & Loss Assessor,Ex.OPC affidavit of H.S.Bedi of Bee Vee Investigating agency alongwith documents,Exs.OP1 copy of policy, Ex.OP2 copy of claim form, Ex.OP3 copy of request letter, Ex.OP4 copy of repudiation letter, Ex.OP5 copy of motor survey report, Ex.R6 copy of investigation report of BEE VEE Investigating agency and closed the evidence.
11. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
12. The ld. Counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant purchased Hyundai car on 1.3.2019 for Rs.6,10,157/-. The ld. Counsel for the complainant has further argued that on the same date the said vehicle was comprehensively got insured by OP No.2 from OP No.1 on behalf of the complainant for the period from 1.3.2019 to 28.2.2020. The ld. Counsel for the complainant has further argued that at the time of purchase of the said vehicle, the complainant requested OP No.2 for temporary registration number. It was disclosed by OP No.2 that the same will be delivered within 5-6 days. The ld. Counsel for the complainant has further argued that  on 6.3.2019, the complainant alongwith her husband visited Golden Temple, Amritsar  and while coming back, at about 6:PM, they reached near Phillaur,  the driver of Swift car , which was going ahead suddenly slow down his car. The husband of the complainant applied breaks to slow down his car, but due to short distance, the left portion of the car in question hit in the right rear portion of the Swift car, as a result of which the car of the complainant over turned into the road side. In this accident the complainant and her husband received injuries and the above said car was damaged. The ld. Counsel for the complainant further argued that the vehicle was remained with OP No.2 for about one month and with Chandigarh workshop for about 10 days. The ld. Counsel for the complainant has further argued that the OPs have wrongly repudiated the claim.The ld. Counsel for the complainant has further argued that comprehensive insurance of the vehicle was got by OP No.2from OP No.1 on behalf of the complainant and the complaint be allowed.
13. On the other hand, the ld. Counsel for the OPs has argued that the vehicle was not having any registration number, so as per guidelines of the Hon’ble Supreme Court , the claim was declined. The ld. Counsel for the OPs has further argued that the vehicle cannot be plied on the road  without valid registration number. The ld. Counsel for the OPs has argued that the complainant has breached the terms and conditions of the policy. The ld. Counsel for the OPs has relied upon the citation Narinder Singh Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. Civil Appeal No.8463 of 2014 decided on 4.9.2014 by  the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
14. Vide, Ex.C1, the car in question was purchased by the complainant for an amount of Rs.6,10,157/-on 1.3.2019.Chassis number and engine number of the vehicle in question are clearly written in this document. On the same date, comprehensive insurance policy(Ex.C2) was duly issued by  OPs No.1&3  in favour of the complainant for the period from 1.3.2019 to 29.2.2020.In this document chassis number and engine number of the vehicle are clearly written. Total amount of Rs.30,048/- was duly paid by the complainant to the insurance company. The document of provisional registration certificate is Ex.C3.
15. As per the complainant, six days after the purchase the vehicle i.e. on 6.3.2019, she alongwith her husband visited Golden Temple and while coming back at about 6:PM they reached near Phillaur the  Swift car, which was going ahead suddenly slow down. The husband of the complainant applied breaks, as a result of which the car hit with the Swift car and damaged.The complainant and her husband sustained injuries. Now vide Ex.C7, the claim has been repudiated by the OPs on the ground that at the time of alleged accident the vehicle was not registered in accordance with Section 39 of Motor Vehicle Act,1988. At the time of alleged accident the vehicle was duly insured but the vehicle was not having any temporary registration number. The ld. Counsel for the OPs has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in which claim was declined on the ground that permanent number was applied even after one month and temporary number was expired. This judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case as in the case in hand the vehicle was comprehensively insured on the same date with Liberty General Insurance Company vide document Ex.C2 and Rs.30,048/- was paid for this purpose.In the cover note,  name and address of the complainant is written. Engine number and chassis of the vehicle in question are also written on this document. On the back of the car DPG Hyundai applied for is written.
16. As the accident was occurred after six days of the purchase of the car and the insurance policy which is for the benefit of the public , the insurance company cannot deny the claim. Once they have received full amount of the comprehensive insurance, and the chassis number and engine number are clearly written on the cover note alongwith the name of the owner of the vehicle in question, the repudiation of the claim which is unjustified.
17. The surveyor in his report,Ex.OP5 has  assessed the loss, to the tune of Rs.2,83,801/-.The OPs have also filed  affidavit of the surveyor, Ex.OPB.
18. In view of this discussion, it is proved that the car in question was duly insured with OPs No.1&3.So they are liable to pay the amount of Rs.2,83,801/- to the complainant alongwith interest @6% from the date of repudiation of claim i.e.30.4.2019 till final payment. The OPs are also burdened with Rs.10,000/- as costs of the complaint. Compliance of the order be made by the OPs within a period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order.

ANNOUNCED

DATED:1.10.2020

                                       Vinod Kumar Gulati             Jasjit Singh Bhinder

                                                Member                                     President