Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/346/2020

Deepika Pulani - Complainant(s)

Versus

Liberty General Insurance Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Dilpreet Singh Gandhi

01 May 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

 

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/346/2020
Date of Institution	:	04/09/2020
Date of Decision	:	01/05/2023

 

Deepika Pulani w/o Rajat Pulani r/o House No.2006/19, Sector 32-C, Chandigarh.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. Liberty General Insurance Ltd., SCO 145-146, Sector 9-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh 160017.
2. Liberty General Insurance Ltd., 10^th Floor, Tower A, Peninsula Business Park, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai 400013.

… Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

 

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Dilpreet Singh Gandhi, Counsel for complainant
	:	Sh. Vishal Sharma, Counsel for OPs

 

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by Smt.Deepika Pulani, complainant against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs).  The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the allegations as projected in the consumer complaint that the complainant had purchased a Royal Enfield motorcycle, Model No.Classic 350 ABS – Gun Grey (hereinafter referred to as “Subject Motorcycle”) from Garg Autos, Chandigarh  vide invoice dated 9.10.2019 (Annexure C-1) for a sum of ₹1,55,740/-, which was got insured by him from the OPs vide policy (Annexure C-2), which was valid from 9.10.2019 to 8.10.2020 by paying the gross premium of ₹8,260/-.  On purchasing the subject motorcycle, complainant got a temporary number on 9.10.2019.  However, the complainant could not get herself registered for the allotment and e-auction of the permanent number as the online portal of the Chandigarh RTO office was closed. Thereafter, when the said office made functional for new series numbers on 12.11.2019, complainant got her online appointment registered on 18.11.2019 and she was allotted appointment on 2.12.2019 by the concerned authority, regarding which messages (Annexure C-5) were generated. The complainant, who had fulfilled all the requirements for acquiring the fancy number, was informed by the authorities on 21.11.2019 that she has become successful bidder of registration No.CH01-BZ-5600 and was asked to clear the remaining amount of the RTO office to reserve the number. The complainant did the needful and permanent number of choice was allotted to her on 21.11.2019.  Unfortunately, on the morning of 22.11.2019, when the complainant got up, she found the subject motorcycle stolen and immediately she reported the matter to the police and FIR No.0302 (Annexure C-8) was registered. The police swung into action and started investigation, but, despite of efforts, it could not search/trace out the lost motorcycle and accordingly the police had prepared the untraced report (Annexure C-9) under Section 173 Cr.PC and the complainant was informed about the same on 31.1.2020. The complainant has been pursuing with the OPs and requesting them through emails for the clearance of her genuine claim, but, with no result. The OPs had repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that since the vehicle was not registered in accordance with Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which is a material term of the policy, the claim cannot be allowed.  The aforesaid act amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. OPs were requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2. OPs resisted the consumer complaint and filed their written version, inter alia, taking preliminary objections of maintainability, jurisdiction, cause of action, estoppel, abuse of process of law and suppression of facts.  However, it is admitted that the subject motorcycle was got insured by the complainant from the OPs.  It is alleged that as per the case of the complainant, the subject motorcycle was stolen on 22.11.2019 whereas she had reported the matter to the police on 5.12.2019 and further since the subject motorcycle was not registered in the name of the complainant at the relevant time, there was clear violation of the terms and conditions of the policy as even under Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act, no person can be allowed to drive the vehicle without getting the same registered.  Thus, the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated by the OPs only when it was found that the terms and conditions of the policy have been violated by the complainant.  On merits, the facts as stated in the preliminary objections have been reiterated. The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
3. In rejoinder, complainant re-asserted the claim put forth in the consumer complaint and prayer has been made that the consumer complaint be allowed as prayed for.

2. In order to prove their case, parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the file carefully, including the written arguments.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the parties that the complainant was the owner of the subject motorcycle, who had purchased the same vide invoice (Annexure C-1) and the same was got insured by her from the OPs vide certificate of insurance (Annexure C-2), which was valid w.e.f. 9.10.2019 to 8.10.2020, and further that the subject motorcycle was stolen on the intervening night of 21/22.11.2019, regarding which matter was reported by the complainant to the police and FIR (Annexure C-8) was registered, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if the OPs are unjustified in repudiating the claim of the complainant by holding that she was not the registered owner of the subject motorcycle and the complainant is entitled for the reliefs prayed for in the consumer complaint, as is the case of the complainant, or if the OPs have rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant by finding that the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the policy by not getting the subject motorcycle registered from the competent authority and the consumer complaint of the complainant, being false and frivolous, is liable to be dismissed, as is the defence of the OPs.
   2. In order to prove her case, complainant has firstly proved the tax invoice (Annexure C-1) of the subject motorcycle which clearly indicates that the complainant had purchased the same on 9.10.2019 and on the same day she got the same insured from the OPs for one year vide certificate of insurance (Annexure C-2).  It is further evident from Annexure C-3 that temporary certificate of registration was issued to the complainant which was valid from 9.10.2019 to 8.11.2019 i.e. for one month.  Perusal of Annexure C-4 clearly indicates that the complainant had participated in the e-auction of the vehicle registration of new series starting from 12.11.2019 and she was successful bidder in getting registration No.CH01-BZ-5600, which fact is also evident from annexure C-7 i.e. the intimation given by VK-VAAHAN portal and she was asked by the authority to pay the balance amount by submitting new draft/getting the balance amount from the RTO office to reserve the number within given working days and the said e-auction result of registration was declared on 21.11.2019.  Annexure C-7 also makes it clear that the complainant had deposited the said amount with the authority and the aforesaid number was allotted to her accordingly.
   3. Thus, when it has come on record that the entire process for the allotment of registration No. had already been completed before 21.11.2019, when fancy No.CH01-BZ-5600 was allotted to the complainant by the authority after the deposit of the entire registration fee, she was the registered owner of the subject motorcycle by having registration No.CH01-BZ-5600.
   4. As per the case of the complainant, the subject motorcycle was stolen on the intervening night of 21/22.11.2019 and she came to know about the said theft only when she got up on the morning of 22.11.2019 and found her motorcycle stolen.  Thereafter, she made search for the subject motorcycle, but, could not find the same and only after that she reported the matter to the police, which resulted in registering FIR (Annexure C-8).  It is further clear from untraced report (Annexure C-9) that despite of sincere efforts by the investigator during investigation, the subject motorcycle could not be traced out and accordingly the case was sent as untraced on 13.1.2020 under Section 173 Cr.P.C.

4. As it stands proved on record that the complainant was the registered owner of the subject motorcycle at the relevant time by having registration No.CH01-BZ-5600, as discussed above, and the same was stolen on the intervening night of 21/22.11.2019 and could not be traced out despite of sincere efforts, as is also evident from the untraced report (Annexure C-8), it is safe to hold that the OPs are unjustified in repudiating the genuine claim of the complainant on the ground that the complainant was not the registered owner of the subject motorcycle.  Hence, the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed and the OPs are liable to pay the IDV of the subject motorcycle i.e. ₹1,47,953/- alongwith interest and compensation. 

4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is hereby partly allowed and OPs are directed as under :-

1. to pay the IDV of ₹1,47,953/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of repudiation of the claim, till realization of the same.
2. to pay an amount of ₹20,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to her;
3. to pay ₹10,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

5. This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
6. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced 01/05/2023 hg			Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
			Sd/- [Surjeet Kaur] Member