Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/827/2021

Ravi Shankar Vaid - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s C.M. Auto Sales Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Kohal Dev

29 May 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/827/2021
Date of Institution	:	26.11.2021
Date of Decision	:	29/5/2024

 

Ravi Shankar Vaid S/o Sh. Dharam Pal Vaid, R/o H.No. 14, New Darshan Bhag, Manimajra, Chandigarh-160101.

 

Complainant.

 

Versus

 

1.   M/s C.M. Auto Sales Pvt Ltd. Plot No. 17, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh.

2. United India Insurance Company Limited through its authorized signatory office

at B-39, Inner Circle, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001

3. Maruti Insurance Broking Private Limited office at 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070

4. Registering and Licensing Authority, Chandigarh Administration through its authorized signatory Chandigarh UT, office at Sector-17, Chandigarh.

.  … Opposite Parties

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER MEMBER

                       

ARGUED BY		Sh. Kohal Dev, Advocate for Complainant. Sh.Raghav Sharma, Advocate proxy for Sh. Amit Bhanot, Advocate for OP No.1. Sh. Pankaj Mohan Kansal, Advocate for OP No.2. Sh.Sahil Abhi, Advocate proxy for Sh. Salil Sabhlok, Advocate for OP No.3 (defence of OP No.3 struck off vide order dated 14.10.2022). Sh. Lovneesh Mehmi, ADA for OP No.4.

Per SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, Member

     Briefly stated the complainant purchased one Maruti Suzuki Tour H2 CNG on 23.11.2019 from OP No.1 vide invoice Exhibit C-1.  The said vehicle was duly insured vide insurance policy Exhibit C-2. The said vehicle was to be registered by OP No.1 within one month from the date of purchase and the complainant supplied all the requisite documents to the OP No.1 and temporary number was issued to the complainant. As the expiry of temporary number was nearing the complainant requested OP No.1 to get the registration finalized and It is further pertinent to mention here that at the time of purchase of the vehicle, the temporary number issued to the complainant's vehicle was CH 74(T)6330 and in the invoices sent to the OP No. 4, the temporary registration number was CH 74(T)6360. The complainant informed the OP No.1 regarding the said mistake in the invoices and was told that it is just a typographical mistake and details sent to OP No.4 are correct and without any fault.  However the OP No.4 rejected the registration of the complainant’s vehicle on the ground that the said details in the invoice were incorrect.  The  complainant raised the issue with OP No.1 and it assured the complainant that the registration will be done within 15 days. ON 20.1.2020 the vehicle in question met with an accident and the  complainant approached OP No.2 and informed the complainant that the vehicle shall be surveyed and repair will be done. When the complainant OP No.1 for taking the vehicle after repair it demanded repair charges from the complainant as the OP No.2 has refused the insurance claim of the complainant on the ground that the vehicle was not having permanent registration number. It is alleged that due to the negligence act of OP No.1 the complainant has suffered loss and he has been deprived from using his vehicle. Alleging the aforesaid act of Opposite Parties deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part, this complaint has been filed.

2. The Opposite Parties NO.1  in its reply stated that the payment for registration of vehicle was submitted on 30-12- 2019 and the RC was issued on 25-03-2020. However, the accident in question took place on 20-01-2020 i.e when the vehicle was having a temporary permit from the registration authority. The complainant has himself annexed the same along with the complaint. The complainant has very cleverly not disclosed the fact that the same was offered to be registered as a taxi and the same was not for personal use and occupation. The complaint is barred under the amended Act as the use and occupation of the vehicle in question was that of a commercial nature. Furthermore, the complainant himself has presented the receipt which clearly shows that the time for the registration was valid upto 26-01-2020. The complainant has not disclosed the same in his complaint. Denying any deficiency on its part a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3. OP No.2 in its reply  stated that there is no deficiency in service on its part. The claim of the complainant was rightly  repudiated as at the time of accident on 20.01.2020 the vehicle of the complainant was without permanent valid RC and valid Route Permit. Therefore, in the light of settled law the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the insured on account of non-registration of the vehicle, route permit etc. as it amount to the fundamental breach of terms and conditions of the policy.  All other allegations made in the complaint has been  denied being wrong.
4. Defence of OP No.3 struck off vide order dated 14.10.2022.
5. OP No.4 in its reply the complaint is not maintainable against the Opposite Party No.4 since there is no deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party No.4, the delay if any is on the part of either the complainant and/or of the OP No.1.It is stated that after the expiry of one month period of purchase of vehicle, the complaint had approached the office of the OP No.4 on 26-12-2019 for submission of his file for the registration of vehicle after one month of the purchase of the vehicle. Since the file submitted by the complainant was incomplete in respect of certain documents, the same was returned to him to complete the above said formalities. On the same day i.e. 26.12.2019, the mail had also been sent to Opposite Party No.1 to verify the documents issued in favour of the complainant regarding purchase of the vehicle. Copy of the Mail is annexed as Annexure OP-4/1. On 30-12-2019 the complainant again approached the Opposite Party No.4 after completing the file and thereafter the file was received by the Office of Opposite Party No.4. On 14-01-2020 the reply of the mail sent by Opposite Party No.4 was received from Opposite Party No.1 and in the reply it was stated that the Temporary No. issued by the Opposite Party No.1 was CH74T6330, however in the reply of the mail the Temporary No. was mentioned as CH74T6360. It is stated that although the OP No.1 has not discharged its obligation in providing the correct information, still as the deadline was fixed for registration of the BS-IV variant as 30.03.2020 in view of the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, therefore, in the interest of the complainant, the matter was taken up by the official of answering OP No.4 on 05-03-2020 for issuance of registration certificate and the passing order was issued on 12-03-2020 and thereafter on 25-03-2020 the registration certificate no. CH02AA9433 was issued to the complainant. Thus in this view of the matter and the admitted position as per the records, there is no deficiency on the part of the OP No.4. Denying any deficiency on its part a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
6. No rejoinder filed.
7. Contesting parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and gone through the record of the case.
9. The main grievance of the complainant is that insptie of having proper insurance cover his legitimate accidental claim towards his insured vehicle has been rejected by the OP No.2 insurance company. He further alleged that the OP No.1 is responsible in causing delay for the issuance of RC  of the vehicle in question.
10. On perusal of documents on record it is observed that the vehicle in question has been purchased on 23.11.2019 and the insurance is valid from 23.11.2019 to 22.11.2020 as is evident from Annexure C-2.  As is evident from temporary number certificate Annexure
    C-5 and insurance policy  the chassis  number of the vehicle has been duly mentioned and both are same. The transport department has received the application  for permanent RC on 30.12.2019. There was considerable delay in issue of permanent RC due to wrong mention of the temporary RC on the documents submitted by OP No.1 to the OP No.4 for the issue of permanent RC due to this negligent act of OP No.1 the claim of the complainant was rejected by OP No.2 on the ground that the complainant did not have permanent RC and route permit. Thus it is clear on record that the OP No.1 acted negligently while discharging its duty   as it mentioned wrong details in the forms  submitted with OP No.4, which caused  immense loss to the complainant as a result of which the permanent RC could not be issued and the claim of the complainant was rejected by the insurance company only on ground of non-availability of permanent RC at the time of accident.  Hence, the there is deficiency on the part of OP No.1 and it is liable to pay the claim amount as per surveyor report Annexure OP-3/1 to the complainant.
11. In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly allowed. OP Nop.1 is directed as under:-

1. to pay claim  amount of Rs.94,661/- with interest @9% P.A. from the date of repudiation of claim till onwards.
2. to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;
3. to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

12.      This order be complied with by the OP No.1 within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, it 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.
13. Complaint qua OPs NO.2,3 and 4 is dismissed.
14. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.
15.      Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

			sd/- [Pawanjit Singh]
			President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member Sd/-
29/5/2024			[Suresh Kumar Sardana]
mp			Member