BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.157 of 2015

Date of Instt. 16.04.2015

Date of Decision :15.09.2015

Sandeep Kumar aged about 28 years son of Kishan Lal R/o H.No.450, Mohalla Katehra, Basti Bawa Khel, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant Versus

1. M/s Bharti AXA General Insurance Co.Ltd, Ist Floor, Ferns Ikon, Survey No.28, Doddanakungi, Village K.R.Puram, Hobli, Bangalore-37, through its Chairman/Mg.Director.

2. M/s Bharti AXA General Insurance Co.Ltd, Unit SF-2, 2nd Floor, Eminent Mall, 261, Lajpat Kunj, Guru Nanak Mission Chowk, Jalandhar through its Branch Manager.

.........Opposite parties.

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.RK Bhalla Adv., counsel for complainant.

Sh.AK Gandhi Adv., counsel for opposite parties.

Order

Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite parties on the averments that the complainant purchased a Tata Indigo ECS Car and at the time of purchase the complainant got insured the above said vehicle from the opposite parties on 27.12.2013 vide insurance certificate cum policy No.S9212015 valid from 27.12.2013 to 26.12.2014. At the time of getting insurance, the complainant paid a sum of Rs.18,848/- for purchasing the comprehensive insurance. During the validity of the insurance policy, the vehicle in question met with an accident near Rama Mandi Flyover, Jalandhar on 16.8.2014. An FIR No.70 dated 16.8.2014 U/s 279/337/338/427 of IPC was also registered in the P.S.Jalandhar Cantt with respect to the said accident. After accident, the complainant immediately informed the opposite parties by dialing toll free No.1800-209-7979 and informed about the said accident as well as registration of the FIR. The concerned official on toll free number informed the complainant that they will send the surveyor to the agency in which the vehicle will be sent for repair. After the accident, complainant gave the vehicle to the authorized service centre i.e Kosmo Motors at G.T.Road, Jalandhar for repair. At the time of accident, the vehicle in question was not got registered by the complainant due to some compelling and unavoidable circumstances and the registration was got done by the complainant on 27.11.2014 and accordingly necessary information was also given to the opposite parties through toll free number. Thereafter the surveyor and investigator deputed by the opposite parties inspected the vehicle and the complainant also provided the necessary information to these persons. The complainant has waited for the compensation of the loss from the opposite parties but on 7.2.2015, the complainant got a letter No.C0702755 from the opposite parties by which they sought some information from the complainant side and accordingly the complainant has supplied all the information to the opposite parties vide letter dated 26.2.2015. Vide that reply, the complainant clearly informed the opposite parties that there is no any malafide intention on the part of the complainant to conceal any fact from the opposite parties and the complainant has narrated the correct facts to the opposite parties with respect to the accident as well as other incident. It is further mentioned that while filing the claim form, the particulars has not been supplied by the complainant and one employee of Kosmo Enterprises has filled the said claim form. The complainant has also informed the correct facts to the said employee who has filled the said claim form. There was no intention on the part of the complainant to submit any false information to the opposite parties. The complainant has also never informed to the opposite parties that the date of accident was 11.12.2014. It is further mentioned that from the documents itself that is FIR No.70 dated 16.8.2014, it is clear that date of accident is 16.8.2014 and moreover that date can not be concealed at any time by the complainant. The complainant never gave any wrong information to the opposite parties about the accident. Repudiation of the claim of the complainant for vehicle in question is totally illegal, void and against the facts and is liable to be set-aside. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to pay him the estimated claimed amount for repair of the said car. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and filed a written reply, inter-alia, raising preliminary objection that the present complaint is not maintainable against the opposite parties and the same is liable to be dismissed. The claim of the complainant has rightly repudiated by the opposite parties as the vehicle in dispute was being plied by the complainant without paying road tax and without registration certificate at the time of accident, in subtle violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. In this case the accident took place on 16.8.2014 and the vehicle in dispute was got registered with the concerned Registration Authority on 27.11.2014 by the complainant, clearly shows that the vehicle in dispute was plied on the road by the complainant without paying the road tax at the time of accident, in the subtle violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. They further pleaded that moreover, the intimation regarding the accident was reported on 18.12.2014 i.e after the four months of accident by the complainant intentionally, in subtle violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. They denied other material averments of the complainant.

3. In support of his complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7 and closed evidence.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties has tendered affidavits Ex.OPA and Ex.OPB alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP20 and closed evidence.

5. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsels for the parties.

6. It is not disputed that the insured vehicle of the complainant met with an accident and was damaged. The complainant lodged claim with opposite party insurance company but it repudiated the same. Without going into the other details, the opposite party insurance company has rightly refused the claim of the complainant on the ground that at the time of accident, it was not having valid registration certificate. In para 2 of the complaint, the complainant has pleaded that vehicle in question met with an accident on 16.8.2014 and FIR No.70 dated 16.8.2014 under section 279/337/338/427 of IPC in PS Jalandhar Cantt with respect to the said accident. Then in para 5 of the complaint, the complainant has pleaded that at the time of accident, the vehicle in question was not got registered by the complainant due to some compelling and unavoidable circumstances and the registration was got done by the complainant on 27.11.2014. Vehicle in question was purchased on 27.12.2013. So according to the own admission of the complainant, the vehicle was not registered at the time of accident and it was got registered after more than three months of the accident. Plying any vehicle without certificate of registration not only constitute breach of condition of the policy but also constitute violation of the law of the land. In Saleena Rani Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd & Anr I (2015) CPJ 220 (NC), the Hon'ble National Commission has held as under:-

"18. In the instant case, as stated above, temporary registration certificate of the car, in question, expired on 8.7.2011. There is nothing on the record, that immediately thereafter, the complainant applied for registration of the vehicle, with the Registering Authority. As stated above, till the date of theft of the car, in question, it had not been registered with the Registering Authority. The car, in question, was thus, being used without any valid registration certificate, and had been taken to New Delhi, where from it was stolen. Thus, the car was being used by the complainant, as also her husband, wholly and completely in violation of the mandatory provisions of section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. A similar question fell for decision in Narinder Singh's case (supra). The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the aforesaid case, laid down the principle of law, to the effect that if the vehicle was being used without valid registering certificate, and damage to the same or loss thereof occurred, then the insurance company could legally and validly repudiate the claim of the insured, in toto. In Kaushalendra Kumar Mishra's case (spura), it was also held that use of the vehicle, in violation of law itself will take it beyond the protection of the policy. In Bharti Axa General Insurance Co. Ltd's case (supra), it was also held that if the loss of the vehicle occurs, when it was being used, in violation of the mandatory provisions of law, the insurer will be justified, to repudiate the claim of the insured. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, is fully applicable to the facts of the instant case. Similarly, the vehicle, in question, was being used, by the husband of the complainant, in violation of the mandatory provisions of section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, at the time of theft thereof, the insurer was justified in legally and validly repudiating the claim of the complainant. There was, therefore, no deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the opposite party No.1, in repudiating the claim of the complainant. The findings of the District Forum, to the contrary, being incorrect, are reversed".

7. The ratio of this authority is fully applicable on the facts of the present case. Since, at the time of accident, the insured vehicle was not having a valid registration certificate, as such the opposite party insurance company has rightly refused to pay the claim of the complainant.

8. In view of above discussion, we hold that there is no merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

15.09.2015 Member Member President