BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.144 of 2015
Date of Instt. 07.04.2015
Date of Decision :03.11.2015
Mukhtiar Singh aged about 34 years son of Darshan Singh R/o VPO Dadwindi, Tehsil Sultanpur Lodhi, District Kapurthala.
..........Complainant Versus
1. M/s Goyal Hyundai, Goyal Automotive Ltd, Kapurthala Road, Opp.Jalandhar Vihar, Jalandhar through its Owner/Manager/ Authorized Person.
2. Bharti AXA General Insurance Co.Ltd., Unit No.SF2 2nd Floor, Eminent Mall, Guru Nanak Chowk, Jalandhar through its Manager/ Authorized Person.
.........Opposite parties.
Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)
Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)
Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)
Present: Sh.SK Rayat Adv., counsel for complainant.
Sh.Vikas Sood Adv., counsel for OP No.1.
Sh.AK Gandhi Adv., counsel for OP No.2.
Order
J.S.Bhatia (President)
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite parties on the averments that the opposite party No.1 is the authorized dealer of selling the new cars of Hyundai Company under the name and style of Goyal Automotive Ltd., whereas the opposite party No.2 is the insurance company. The complainant purchased one car i10 Megna 1.2 Chassis No.346374, Engine No.950704, Colour White from opposite party No.1 on 30.1.2013 vide bill dated 30.1.2013 and paid Rs.4,33,000/- in cash against a duly issued bill No.878. At the time of purchase, the opposite party No.1 got the vehicle comprehensively insured with opposite party No.2. Unfortunately on 27.5.2013, the complainant was coming from Sultanpur Lodhi to Kapurthala by the above said car and near village Pajian, the vehicle met with an accident with a Gypsy. In this accident, the car of the complainant was badly damaged. The complainant and his wife also got injuries in the said accident and remained admitted in Kapurthala Nursing Home, Kapurthala for three to four days and on the same date i.e 27.5.2013 a friend of the complainant contacted the workshop of the opposite party No.1 and the opposite party No.1 sent a vehicle and took the said damaged car to the workshop of opposite party No.1 and also received a sum of Rs.2500/- from the complainant. The matter was compromised with the owner of the Gypsy as the accident had occurred due to some animal coming in front of the Gypsy and to save the life of that animal the Gypsy and the car collided against each other. From 27.5.2013 the car is lying with the opposite party No.1 for repairs and till today, the said car has not been handed over to the complainant. The complainant many time requested opposite party No.1 to return the car of the complainant. As the car was fully insured with the opposite party No.2. At the time of purchase of the car the opposite party No.1 presented itself to be agent of the opposite party No.2 as carrying the agency of insurance of opposite party No.2. The opposite party No.1 assured the complainant that in the event of any accident all types of losses will be borne by the insurance company being cash less insurance. In the month of August 2013 the complainant approached the opposite party No.1 and enquired about his car. The opposite party No.1 told that the said car has been repaired and a bill of about Rs.1,78,000/- is to be paid by the complainant. Thereafter the complainant went to the office of opposite party No.2 and requested the officials to pay the said charges to the opposite party No.1 but the opposite party No.2 also refused to make payment of the said bill on lame excuses and on 3.9.2013 when the complainant went to the office of opposite party No.2 and again requested to pay the entire amount of bill directly to the opposite party No.1, then the opposite party No.2 abused and misbehaved with the complainant and threw him out forcibly from their office and thereby insulted, humiliated the complainant in presence of the other customers present there. The complainant filed a consumer complaint in which this Forum vide order dated 16.6.2014 granted an opportunity to opposite parties to decide the claim of the complainant one way or another. As per the order of this Forum, the complainant approached to the insurance company and moved an application to opposite party No.2 on 30.6.2014 i.e within 15 days of the receipt of orders and offered to submit any document if required. But the opposite party has not demanded any documents and the time of 45 days elapsed. Thereafter the complainant filed an execution application for the execution of the orders dated 16.6.2014 in which the complainant came to know that the opposite parties have illegally, arbitrarily and intentionally refused to accept the genuine claim of the complainant. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to replace the above said car with new one of the same value and model and to return the insurance amount of Rs.10280/-. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.
2. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and filed their written replies. In its written reply opposite party No.1, inter-alia, pleaded that the opposite party No.1 has nothing to do with the insurance claim amount as the claim is to be passed by the opposite party No.2. However, the damaged car has been placed in the workshop of the opposite party No.1 and it is still lying there. Nobody has bothered to take the delivery of the car for the last two years and the opposite party No.1 is entitled for the compensation. It is incorrect that opposite party No.1 ever assured that in any event the amount will be paid by the insurance company. Temporary number was valid for 30 days only and thereafter it was incumbent on the part of the complainant to get his vehicle registered with the DTO Office. It is incorrect that the opposite party No.1 is the agent of the opposite party No.2. It denied other material averments of the complainant.
3. In its separate written reply opposite party No.2, inter-alia, pleaded that the claim of the complainant has rightly been repudiated by the opposite party No.2 vide letter dated 11.8.2014 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 insurance policy and Motor Vehicles Act. It denied other material averments of the complainant.
4. In support of his complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C19 and closed evidence.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party No.1 has tendered affidavit Ex.OP1/A and closed evidence. Further learned counsel for opposite party No.2 has tendered affidavits Ex.OP2/A and Ex.OP2/B alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP2/1 to Ex.OP2/19 and closed evidence.
6. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsels for the parties and further gone through the written arguments submitted on behalf of complainant.
7. The written arguments filed by the complainant are in substance reproduction of the averments contained in the complaint. It is not disputed that insured car of the complainant met with an accident and was damaged. The complainant lodged insurance claim with opposite party No.2 but the same was not decided by the insurance company and as such earlier the complainant filed a consumer complaint before this Forum and in that consumer complaint the opposite party insurance company was directed to decided the claim of the complainant one way or another. Thereafter, the opposite party insurance company has repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 11.8.2014 Ex.OP2/1 on the ground that the vehicle was registered on 11.6.2013 i.e after the loss or accident of the vehicle. According to the own version of the complainant, the complainant purchased the car from opposite party No.1 on 30.1.2013. At the time of purchase a temporary registration number is given to the purchaser which remains valid for a period of one month. According to the complainant, the car met with accident on 27.5.2013 i.e after the expiry of temporary registration number. The complainant has not got registered the car till the date of accident i.e 27.5.2013. Ex.OP2/3 is certificate of registration of the car and in it date of registration is mentioned as 11.6.2013. So it means that the car was got registered after the accident and at the time of accident i.e 27.5.2013 it was not having any valid registration certificate. The plying of the car without valid registration certificate constitute a fundamental breach of condition of the policy. It also constitutes an offence. Learned counsel for the complainant has relied upon IFFCO Tokia General Ins.Co.Ltd Vs. Pratima Jha, Revision Petition No.171 of 2012 decided on 27.4.2012 by Hon'ble National Commission. No doubt the above cited authority to some extent support the case of the complainant but subsequently the Hon'ble National Commission in IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd & Anr Vs. Pratap Bhagwan Patil, II (2015) CPJ 739 (NC), after relying upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
“7. All these arguments have left no impression upon us because in a latest authority by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Narinder Singh Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd & Ors, III (2004) ACC 890 (SC)=IV (2014) CPJ II (SC)=VII (2014) SLT 464= Civil Appeal No.8463 of 2014, decided on 4.9.2014, it took a wee bit different view. Para Nos.12, 13 and 14 of the said judgment are reproduced here as under:-
“12. A bare perusal of section 39 shows that no person shall drive the motor vehicle in any public place without any valid registration granted by the registering authority in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
13. However, according to section 43, the owner of the vehicle may apply to the registering authority for temporary registration and a temporary registration mark. If such temporary registration is granted by the authority, the same shall be valid only for a period not exceeding one month.
The proviso of section 43 clarified that the period of one month may be extended for such a further period by the registering authority only in a case where a temporary registration is granted in respect of chassis to which body has not been attached and the same is detained in a workshop beyond the said period of one month for being fitted with a body or unforeseen circumstances beyond the control of the owner.
14. Indisputably, a temporary registration was granted in respect of the vehicle in question, which had expired on 11.1.2006 and the alleged accident took place on 2.2.2006 when the vehicle was without any registration. Nothing has been brought on record by the appellant to show that before or after 11.1.2006, when the period of temporary registration expired, the appellant, owner of the vehicle either applied for permanent registration as contemplated under section 39 of the Act, or made any application for extension of period as temporary registration on the ground of some special reasons. In our view, therefore, using a vehicle on the public road without any registration is not only an offence punishable under section 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act, but also a fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of policy contract”.
8. In this authority the authority relied upon by learned counsel for the complainant has also been considered. So in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble National Commission, we have no hesitation to hold that insurance company was justified in repudiating the claim of the complainant as he was plying the car without any valid certificate of registration.
9. 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
03.11.2015 Member Member President
