Haryana

StateCommission

A/1133/2015

United India Insurance Company Limited - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mahabir Singh - Opp.Party(s)

05 Apr 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                                   First Appeal No.1133 of 2014     Date of Institution: 08.12.2014                                                                       Date of Decision: 05.04.2016

United India Insurance Company Limited, Regional Office SCO 123-124, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh, through its duly constituted attorney Smt.Sunita Sharam, Dy.Manager.

…..Appellant

Versus

 

1. Mahabir Singh son of Shri Daya Nand, resident of Village Bhaini Surjan, Tehsil Meham District Rohtak now residing at Vidya Nagar, Bhiwani, Tehsil & District Bhiwani.
2. M/s International Autotrac Finance Limited village Cheak Gurjran, P.O. Piplanwala, Hoshiarpur (Punjab) and having its Branch Office at Rohtak through its Branch Manager.

                                      …..Respondents

 

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

                             Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                                                                                                                        

Present:              Shri P.S.Saini, Advocate counsel for the appellants.

                             None for respondent No.1.

                              Shri Neeraj Soni proxy counsel for Sh.Mohit Sareen Advocate counsel for the respondent No.2.

                                                   O R D E R

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

          It was alleged by the complainant that he got his tractor, bearing registration No.HR99BG-1771, insured from OP No.2 for a sum of Rs.6,32,225/- valid from 03.01.2008 to 02.01.2009. During the intervening night of 12/13.04.2008 tractor was stolen when it was parked at the house of in-laws of his son at Tosham. FIR was got registered on 13.04.2008 and information was also given to the opposite party (O.P.), but, his claim was repudiated.

2.      The OP filed reply controverting his averments and alleged that complainant was not entitled for any compensation because he did not get his tractor registered with Registration Authority (R.A.) within one month from the purchase on 02.01.2008. He was also using tractor for hire and reward. Objections about maintainability of complaint, estoppal, locus standi, concealing true facts etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.

3.      After hearing both the counsel learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhiwani (In Short “District Forum”) allowed the complaint vide impugned order dated 07.05.2014 and directed as under:

“1.    To pay 75 % of the insured amount to the complainant with interest @ 12 % per annum from the date of repudiation till its final realization.

2.      To pay Rs.2200/- as litigation charges.”

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom the OP has preferred this appeal.

5.      Arguments of counsel for appellant only were heard because nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondent since 2 dates. Even on previous dates proxy counsel appeared for the counsel of respondent. Learned counsel for appellant vehemently argued that tractor was purchased on 02.01.2008, but, complainant never got the same registered within 30 days as provided under section 39 and 43  of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (In short M.V.Act). He did not approach registration authority to register the vehicle and was using without registration, so he is not entitled for any compensation as per opinion of Hon’ble Supreme Court expressed in case titled as Narinder Singh Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited & Others 2014 AIR (SC) 3761.

6.      This argument appears plausible. As per opinion of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in aforementioned case law, it is clear that if a person has not got the vehicle registered within the stipulated time as provided u/s 39 and 43 of M.V.Act and is using the same then he is not entitled for any compensation. In the present case, the complainant purchased the vehicle on 02.01.2008 and was using temporary registration number. He has failed to show that he ever approached registration authority for regular registration or to extend the temporary registration number. Learned District Forum has failed to taken into consideration this aspect despite objection raised by the O.Ps. When the tractor was not got registered in time then complainant was not entitled for any compensation. Hence, impugned order dated 07.05.2014 is hereby set aside. Appeal is allowed and the complaint is dismissed.

7.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing of appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and due verification.

April 5th, 2016                   Urvashi Agnihotri                           R.K.Bishnoi,                                                                         Member                                            Judicial Member                                                                 Addl. Bench                                     Addl.Bench             

N.K.