BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint No.159/2017.
Date of instt.:13.6.2017.
Date of Decision:28.08.2018.
Kushal Pal s/o Shri Mohan Lal, r/o VPO Kasour, Mastgarh, Tehsil Guhla, Distt. Kaithal.
……….Complainant.
Versus
- Maruti Insurance Broking Pvt. Ltd., 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delh-110070.
- Royal Sundaram General Insurance Co. Ltd., (formerly known as Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd.), Vishranthi Melaram Towers No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai (OMR), Karapakkam, Chennai-600097.
- Eakansh Motors Pvt. Ltd., Ambala Road, Kaithal through its Manager.
..……..Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Shri Jagmal Singh, President.
Shri Parmod Kumar, Member.
Present: Shri Amarjeet Singh, Adv. for the complainant.
Shri S.R. Bansal, Adv. for OP No.1.
Shri M.R. Miglani, Adv. for OP No.2.
Shri S.K. Gupta, Adv. for OP No.3.
ORDER
(JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT).
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he is the owner of vehicle LMV Car bearing Registration No.HR-09E-6361 and got insured the same with the OP No.1 through OP No.2 vide Policy Cover Note No.MOP3431663. It is further alleged that the said vehicle was met with an accident on 27.1.2017 within the area of village Duserpur, Tehsil Guhla. On 27.1.17, Tarsem Singh son of Arur Singh was going to Cheeka from his village Mastgarh alongwith Rahul son of Rajesh in the vehicle bearing Registration No.HR-99XMTP-8937 and at about 07:45 PM, when they reached at T Point Duserpur about ½ KM towards Guhla road, a vehicle bearing No.HR09C-8881 being driven by its driver came in a very high speed in rash and negligent manner and hit against his car and in this accident, Tarsem Singh and Rahul got injuries. It is further alleged that a FIR No.0010 dt. 28.1.2017 in this regard was also recorded. It is further alleged that he informed the OP No.1 and lodged his claim with the OPs well in time but the OPs refused to admit and satisfy his claim on the ground the at the time of accident, there is no valid registration of vehicle. This way, the OPs are deficient in service. Hence, this complaint is filed.
2. Upon notice, the opposite party appeared No.1 before this forum and filed reply submitting therein that OP No.1 is merely an insurance broking entity licensed; that the role of OP No.1 being a facilitator is to apprise the customers about the features and benefits of motor insurance products of various insurance companies; that after the facilitation, the customers buy insurance as per their own will; that policy issuance or cancellation, acceptance or repudiation of claims or any other mater related thereto is the sole prerogative of the concerned insurance company and the OP has no role to play in the same; that in the instant case, OP No.2 i.e. Royal Sundaram General Insurance Co. Ltd., is the insurer and risk carrier of the vehicle of the complainant; that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the answering OP.
OP No.2 appeared and filed reply submitting therein that insured vehicle was not registered at the time of accident which is a gross violation of the policy of insurance policy; that the vehicle in question was running in the public road without registration at the time of accident which is clear violation of limitation as to use of policy as well as the statutory provisions in Central Motor Vehicle Act and Rules and prayed for dismissal the complaint.
OP No.3 appeared and filed reply submitting therein that the answering OP has nothing to do with the vehicle in question not any liability of vehicle any towards any insurance claim or any loss to the vehicle and the liability, if any is of the OP No.1 and 2; that the answering OP has duly assessed the estimated loss of vehicle in question and after that, the complainant has not got repaired the vehicle in question; that the complainant may kindly be burdened with costs of Rs.20,000/- for unnecessarily impleading the answering OP and also for filing the false complaint against OP No.3.
3. In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A; documents Mark C1 to C10 and closed the evidence on 28.11.2017. On the other hand, OP No.1 failed to produce any evidence despite availing various opportunities and thus, evidence of OP No.1 was closed by Court order. OP No.2 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A; documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R3, Mark R1 to R3 and closed evidence on 24.1.2018. OP No.3 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RW3/A; documents Mark RA to Mark RB and closed evidence on 24.1.2018.
4. We have heard ld. counsel for the parties and perused the case file carefully & minutely and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.
5. Ld. counsel for the complainant reiterated all the points mentioned in the complaint. He argued that the complainant is the owner of vehicle bearing Registration No.HR09E-6361 and got insured the same with the OPs No.1 through OP No.2. He further argued that the said vehicle met with an accident on 27.1.2017. He further argued that the complainant informed the OP No.1 and lodged his claim with the OPs well in time but the OPs refused to admit the claim of the complainant on the ground that at the time of accident, there is no valid registration of vehicle. This way, the OPs are deficient in service.
6. On the other hand, it is argued by ld. counsel for OP No.1 that OP No.1 is merely an insurance broking entity licensed and the role of OP No.1 being a facilitator is to apprise the customers about the features and benefits of motor insurance products of various insurance companies. It is further argued that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the answering OP No.1.
It is argued by ld. counsel for OP No.2 that insured vehicle was not registered at the time of accident which is a gross violation of the policy of insurance and the Central Motor Vehicle Act & Rules. It is further argued that the complainant had taken a private car package policy for his new Maruti Alto K-10 VXI vide Policy Ex.R1 valid from 16.2.16 to 15.2.17 subject to policy terms and conditions. It is further argued that the vehicle was got registered on 31.01.2017 after the date of accident which took place on 27.1.2017. It is further argued that the temporary registration has already expired much before the time of accident and the vehicle was running on the public road without registration which is clear violation of limitation as to use of policy as well as the statutory provisions in Central Motor Vehicle Act & Rules. It is further argued that the OP No.2 has rightly denied the claim of the complainant.
It is argued by ld. counsel for OP No.3 that answering OP has nothing to do with the vehicle in question and the liability, if any, is of the OP No.1 and 2. It is further argued that the answering OP No.3 has duly assessed the estimated loss of vehicle in question and after that, the complainant has not got repaired the vehicle in question.
7. From the pleadings of the parties, it is clear that the complainant was the owner of L.M.V. car Alto K10 bearing Registration No.HR09E-6361, Engine No.K10BN1926347 and chassis No.MA3EZDE1S00235327 which was insured with OP No.2 through OP No.1 vide policy No.MOP3431663 w.e.f. 16.2.16 to 15.2.17 vide Certificate cum Policy Schedule Mark C-1/Ex.R1. The said vehicle met with an accident on 27.1.2017 being driven by one Tarsem Singh s/o Arur Singh when he was going to Cheeka with one Rahul s/o Rajesh, r/o village Mastgarh. In this regard, a FIR bearing No.0010 dt. 28.1.2017 Mark C-5 was registered on the statement of said Rahul. On intimation, the OPs appointed a surveyor. The said surveyor conducted the survey and submitted his report Ex.R3. The OPs refused to entertain the claim of the complainant vide letter dt. 22.02.2017 Mark C-7/Mark R-3 which reads as under:-
“With reference to the above mentioned claim, we observed from the claim papers that no valid registration at the time of accident.
We, therefore, regret our inability to entertain the claim”.
8. From the submissions of the parties, it has become clear that the main dispute between the parties is that whether during the validity of temporary registration, the vehicle in question was got registered by the complainant or applied for its registration and whether the vehicle was registered at the time of accident?
9. From the copy of insurance policy Mark C1/Ex.R1, it is clear that the same was effective from 16.2.2016 to 15.02.2017 which clearly indicates that the vehicle in question was purchased on 16.02.2016. It is also clear from this insurance policy that the vehicle in question was a new Alto K-10 VXI and the manufacturing year of the same was 2016 which clearly indicates that the vehicle in question was new one. From these facts, it is also clear that the vehicle in question was purchased on or before 16.02.2016. The complainant has produced the copy of Registration Certificate of the vehicle in question as Mark C2 and the copy of receipt regarding deposit of registration fee and other charges as Mark C3. Both these documents i.e. Mark C-2 and Mark C-3 are dated 31.01.2017, which clearly prove that the complainant has applied for the registration of the vehicle in question on 31.01.2017. The accident in question took place on 27.1.2017, meaning thereby, the complainant has no valid registration certificate on 27.1.2017, at the time of accident in question. From the above facts, it is clear that the complainant has applied for the registration of the vehicle in question after more than eleven months. The complainant has not produced any such evidence vide which, it can be proved on the file that he was having a valid registration certificate of vehicle in question at the time of accident. The ld. counsel for the OPs produced case law cited in 1 (2017) CPJ, Page No.386 (NA) titled as Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Vikram Kanda, the head-note of the same runs as under:-
“Consumer Protection Act, 1986- Sections 2(1)(g), 21(b) – Motor Vehicles Act, 1988- FIR lodged- Delayed intimation- Registration not done after expiry of temporary registration- Breach of statutory provision and policy condition- Claim repudiated- Deficiency in service alleged- District Forum dismissed complaint- State Commission allowed appeal- Hence revision- There is nothing on record that after expiry of temporary registration, petitioner immediately applied for registration of vehicle with registering authority- Irrespective of fact, whether, vehicle is parked or plying, it is mandatory that vehicle be registered under Section 39 of MV Act, 1988- Not getting vehicle registered for more than five months is fundamental breach – Repudiation justified- Impugned order set aside”.
The ld. counsel for the OPs produced another authority cited in 2015(1) CLT, Page No.518 titled Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Vidya Bal on the same point.
10. From the facts mentioned above, it is clear that in the present case also, the vehicle in question was not got registered on the day of accident on 27.1.2017. The complainant has not produced any such evidence, vide which, it can be proved on the file that he was having a valid registration certificate of vehicle in question at the time of accident. The authorities cited by the OPs are fully applicable to the facts of the present case. So, in these facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view that the OPs have committed no mistake in denying the claim of the complainant. Hence, we found no deficiency in service on the part of OPs.
11. Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we find no merit in the present complaint and accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced.
Dt.28.08.2018.
(Parmod Kumar), (Jagmal Singh).
Member. President.
