DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.

 

Complaint Case No : 694/2016

Date of Institution : 14.12.2016

Date of Decision : 16.03.2018

 

1. Krishan Gopal aged about 59 years son of Chanan Ram. 

2. Rani Devi age 50 years wife of Krishan Gopal.

3. Vanshika aged 1 ¼ year daughter of Sandeep Kumar son of Krishan Gopal under the guardianship of her grandmother Rani Devi (Complainant No. 2).

All residents of Maur Dhunda Patti, Sehna, District Barnala (Punjab).  

 

                  …Complainants

Versus

1. M/s Goyal Bajaj Sangrur Automobile Private Limited, Near Bus Stand, Barnala through its Proprietor/Partner/Authorized Signatory.

2. National Insurance Company Limited, Branch Barnala, Opposite Parbhat Cinema, Near Railway Station, Barnala through its Senior Branch Manager. 

3. M/s Bajaj Finance Limited, Regd. Office Mumbai-Pune Road, Akrudi-411035 (Maharashtra) Through its M.D./Authorized Signatory.

 

            …Opposite Parties

 

Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Present: Sh. Rahul Gupta counsel for complainants.   

Sh. Amarinder Singh counsel for opposite party No. 1.

Sh. NK Singla counsel for opposite party No. 2.

Sh. DS Dhaliwal counsel for opposite party No. 3. 

Quorum.-

1. Shri Sukhpal Singh Gill : President

2. Ms. Vandna Sidhu : Member

ORDER

 

(SUKHPAL SINGH GILL, PRESIDENT):

    The complainant Krishan Gopal and others have filed the present complaint against M/s Goyal Bajaj Sangrur Automobile Private Limited, Barnala (hereinafter called as the opposite parties).

2. The brief facts of the present complaint are that Sandeep Kumar son of complainants No. 1 and 2 and father of complainant No. 3 had purchased new Bajaj Platina Motorcycle from opposite party No. 1 on 1.9.2016 bearing Engine No. 85341, Chassis No. 60893 for Rs. 43,184/- which was got financed by opposite party No. 1 from some financier. The motorcycle was also got insured by opposite party No. 1 vide policy No. 404201/31/16/6200001045. But the opposite party No. 1 neither issued invoice nor gave any temporary number of the motorcycle. Sandeep Kumar had paid Rs. 10,000/- in cash to opposite party No. 1 and rest of the finance was arranged by opposite party No. 1 which was to be repaid in monthly installments. Sandeep Kumar had paid part price of the motorcycle to opposite party No. 1 and rest of payment was deferred to be paid in installments and he also paid premium to opposite party No. 2. It is further submitted that complainants being dependents of Sandeep Kumar are beneficiary consumers and are entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum. More particulars were known to opposite party No. 1 or Sandeep Kumar who has since deceased. The accident of vehicle took place within three days from the purchase of motorcycle, so there was no default in payment of installments. It is further submitted that Mrs. Komal Rani wife of Sandeep Kumar deceased left the house of her in-laws after Bhog Ceremony with her parents and she has remarried with some other person, so she is not impleaded as a party nor she is entitled to any benefit as per law. It is further submitted that opposite party No. 1 had received registration charges from the said Sandeep Kumar and motorcycle was to be got registered by opposite party No. 1 from the DTO Office, Barnala. The said Sandeep Kumar was going from Sehna to Barnala on 3.9.2016 driving the said motorcycle and he met with an accident near Village Jagjitpura. FIR No. 41 dated 5.9.2016 was registered at Police Station, Barnala under Sections 279/337/338 of IPC. It is further submitted that complainants lodged a claim with opposite party No. 2, but instead of approving the claim they sent letter dated 8.11.2016 raising demand of invoice of vehicle, tax receipt, copy of RC and also provide the reason for delay in intimating the claim. The complainant No. 1 sent reply through his counsel. Even, the complainant No. 1 also sent legal notice to opposite party No. 1 through his counsel but with no effect. Further, the motorcycle was totally damaged in the said accident and cannot be made roadworthy. The said act of the opposite parties caused mental tension, agony and harassment to the complainant. So, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, the complainants filed the present complaint seeking the following reliefs.-

The opposite parties may be directed to pay the following amounts to the complainants alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 3.9.2016 till realization.-

1) To pay price of motorcycle of Rs. 43,184/-.

2) To pay personal accident claim of Rs. 1,00,000/-. 

3) To pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment.  

4) To pay Rs. 5,000/- as litigation expenses.  Totaling Rs. 1,68,184/-.

3. Upon notice of this complaint the opposite party No. 1 filed the written statement taking preliminary objections on the grounds of maintainability as the vehicle is out of warranty and hopelessly time barred as provided under the Consumer Protection Act. Further, the opposite party has nothing to do with the said claim and it is the insurance company who pay the amount if any as per their terms because it is a accidental case of vehicle in question and some MACT claim might have been lodged with the Claim Tribunal. Further, this Forum has no jurisdiction in a complicated question of law and facts and there is no deficiency in service or any unfair trade practice. On merits, it is submitted that the complainants are bound to prove by way of documentary and expert evidence to lodge the claim if any because the insurance company indemnify the claim of the complainant if any. So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with costs. 

4. The opposite party No. 2 also filed written version taking legal objections on the grounds that the complainants are not the consumers of the answering opposite party. The complaint is bad for non joindr and mis joinder of necessary parties and complainants does not disclose any cause of action to file the present complaint against the answering opposite party. Further, the alleged vehicle was being used on public road without any registration granted by the concerned registering authority as per Motor Vehicle Act, so the same is breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy and also an offence under Section 192 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. Further, complaint is premature. On merits, it is admitted that Bajaj Platina Std. 100 Motor Cycle Model 2016 bearing Engine No. 85341 Chassis No. 60893 without having any temporary or permanent registration number was insured with the answering opposite party for the period from 1.9.2016 to 31.8.2017 in the name of Sandeep Kumar son of Krishan Gopal resident of Maur Dhunda Patti, VPO Sehna. It s further submitted that intimation about the alleged accident was given by complainant No. 1 to the answering opposite party on 3.11.2016, as such there has been a considerable delay in giving intimation to the answering opposite party about the alleged accident. The opposite party also sent a letter dated 8.11.2016 to the complainant No. 1 who filed its reply through his counsel. It is further submitted that complainant No. 1 failed to provide the invoice of the vehicle, tax receipt and registration certificate and reason for delay in intimating the answering respondent within 7 days period. So, the reminders dated 28.11.2016 and 8.12.2016 were sent to complainant No. 1 through registered post but complainant No. 1 did not receive the same. So, the answering opposite party is not liable to pay any claim/compensation to the complainants and prayed for the dismissal of complaint. 

5. The opposite party No. 3 filed separate written version taking legal objections on the grounds of no locus-standi or cause of action, complaint is bad for mis-joinder of parties etc. On merits, it is denied that the said motorcycle was got financed by opposite party No. 1 from the answering opposite party. It is further submitted that none of the complainants visited the office of answering opposite party nor any notice was ever received by them and prayed for the dismissal of complaint. 

6. In order to prove the case, the complainants tendered into evidence copy of duplicate policy Ex.C-1, copy of FIR Ex.C-2, copy of reply of letter of opposite party No. 2 Ex.C-3, copy of legal notice Ex.C-4, copies of postal receipts Ex.C-5 & Ex.C-6, affidavit of complainant dated 14.3.2017 Ex.C-7, affidavit of Krishan Gopal dated 17.8.2017 Ex.C-8, affidavit of Rani Devi Ex.C-9, certified copy of FIR dated 5.9.2016 Ex.C-10 and closed the evidence. 

7. To rebut the case of complainants, the opposite party No. 1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Narain Dass Branch Head Ex.O.P-1/1, copy of delivery memo dated 31.8.2016 Ex.O.P-1/2 and closed the evidence. 

8. The opposite party No. 2 tendered into evidence copy of letter dated 8.11.2016 Ex.O.P-2/1, copy of letter dated 28.11.2016 Ex.O.P-2/2, copy of letter dated 8.12.2016 Ex.O.P-2/3, copy of postal receipt Ex.O.P-2/4, copy of envelop received unserved Ex.O.P-2/5, copy of postal receipt Ex.O.P-2/6, copy of envelop received unserved Ex.O.P-2/7, copy of letter dated 3.11.2016 Ex.O.P-2/8, copy of insurance policy Ex.O.P-2/9, copy of terms and conditions Ex.O.P-2/10, affidavit of A.C. Kailey Divisional Manager Ex.O.P-2/11 and closed the evidence. 

9. The opposite party No. 3 tendered into evidence affidavit of Deepakaran Singh Senior Legal Officer Ex.O.P-3/1 and closed the evidence. 

10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file. 

11. Ld. Counsel for the complainants has argued that the deceased Sandeep Kumar has purchased Bajaj Palatina Motorcycle from the opposite party No.1 on 1.9.2016 and the same was got insured from the opposite party No. 2 and was got financed from the opposite party No. 3. Deceased Sandeep Kumar met with an accident on 3.9.2016 and the FIR was got registered on 5.9.2016 and the claim was filed with the opposite party No. 2. But the opposite party No. 2 has not paid the claim despite submissions of all the documents. 

12. Counsel for the opposite party No. 3 has argued that opposite party No. 3 has no concern with the present complaint as well as with Sandeep Kumar deceased. Sandeep Kumar has not advanced any loan nor the same has been mentioned on the policy Ex.O.P-2/9 that the vehicle was financed. So, the opposite party No. 3 has no concern with the present complaint, as they have not financed any amount to deceased Sandeep Kumar nor they are demanding any demand from the complainants. 

13. Counsel for the opposite party No. 1 has argued that the opposite party No. 1 has no connection with the payment of claim. Even, the opposite party No. 1 not admitted that the vehicle was sold by them. 

14. Counsel for the opposite party No. 2 has argued that the complainant was plying the motorcycle without registration which is against the policy conditions and has relied upon Section 39 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 which is as under:-

“39. Necessity for registration-

'No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this Chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner'

15. Counsel for the opposite party No. 2 has also relied upon the citation 2016 (4) CLT 76 in which the Hon'ble National Commission has held that the vehicle was not registered for more than five months after the expiry of the period of provisional registration. Held, Fundamental breach of terms of policy. Claim rightly repudiated. Irrespective of the fact, whether the vehicle is parked or plying, it is mandatory that the vehicle be registered, as stipulated under Section 39 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. 

16. So, admittedly no document has been produced on the file that the vehicle was got registered neither any registration number has been produced nor any document has been produced that he applied for the registration. Therefore, in view of the citation the complainants have failed to prove their case and the same is dismissed. However, no order as to costs. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the records. 

 

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:

      16th Day of March 2018

 

 

 

            (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

           President

 

 

           (Vandna Sidhu)                Member