BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MYSORE-570023

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.1256/2014

DATED ON THIS THE 25^th November 2016

      Present:  1) Sri. H.M.Shivakumara Swamy

B.A., LLB., - PRESIDENT   

    2) Smt. M.V.Bharathi                    

                                   B.Sc., LLB., -  MEMBER

                     3) Sri. Devakumar.M.C.                  

                                                          B.E., LLB.,    - MEMBER

Sri Devakumar.M.C.

Member

1.     The complainant filed the complaint under section 12 of the C.P.Act 1986, against the opposite parties, alleging negligence and deficiency in service and seeking a direction to settle the own damage claim of Rs.12,74,206.98 or on total loss basis together with interest at 2% per month and also award Rs.2,00,000/- compensation for the mental agony, hardship, and inconvenience caused with such other reliefs.
2.     The car purchased by the complainant, was registered temporarily, obtained the comprehensive insurance policy from opposite party No.1 and the same was renewed.  During subsistence of the policy, the car met with an accident, injuring the inmates and the car.  A police case registered.  The car was towed to the authorised service centre who after assessment submitted an estimate repair charges.  The complainant made the claim, submitting all the relevant documents.  The opposite party repudiated the claims.  Hence, the aggrieved complainant filed the complaint, seeking reliefs.
3.    The opposite parties filed their common version, denying the allegations as false.  The opposite parties admits the issue of insurance policy and its renewal.  On receipt of the claim intimation after the accident, the surveyor of opposite parties investigated and assessed the loss to the vehicle.  The complainant failed to submit the certificate of registration on demand.  Hence, the opposite parties repudiated the claims and submits there is no lapses on their parts and prays for dismissal of the complaint.
4.     To prove the facts, the complainant filed her affidavit evidence and placed several documents.  The opposite parties filed their affidavit.  Written arguments filed by both parties.  Opposite party counsel submitted oral arguments.  Perusing the material on record, matter posted for orders.
5.     The points arose for our consideration are:-

1. Whether the complainant establishes the negligence and deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties, in not settling the insurance claim in respect of the insured vehicle and thereby she is entitled for the reliefs sought?
2.  What order?

6.    Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

Point No.1 :- In the negative.

Point No.2 :- As per final order for the following

:: R E A S O N S ::

7.    Point No.1:- The complainant purchased the car on 29.09.2011 and got insured with opposite party No.1 and the policy was valid from 29.09.2011 to 28.09.2012.  The car was bearing temporary registration number.  The policy got renewed on 29.09.2012 to 28.09.2013, which is a comprehensive insurance policy.  The car met with an accident on 11.11.2012 inmates sustained injuries and the car got damaged.  The jurisdictional police registered the case and did the spot inspection and the concerned RTO authorities inspected the vehicles and submitted the report regarding the damages caused to the vehicles.  The car was towed to the authorised service centre, who on inspection, submitted an estimate of Rs.12,74,206.98 towards the repair charges.  The complainant reporting the accident made the claims under policy.  Based on surveyor’s report, opposite party repudiated the claims on 22.01.2013, for the reasons, that the car met with accident after the expiry of temporary registration certificate.  Aggrieved by the repudiation of the claim alleging deficiency in service, filed the complaint seeking reliefs.
8.   The opposite party Nos.1 and 2 filed a common version denying the allegations as false.  The opposite parties admitted the issue of insurance policy and its renewal as true and the policy is subject to the rules and regulations.  The opposite parties submits, the occurrence of the accident, registration of complaint, spot inspection and estimation of repair charges by M/s Sreenidhi Automobiles, Mangalore, are all not within their knowledge. Further, opposite parties admitted that, the complainant reports the accident and the damage caused to the car and submits the claim form along with all relevant particulars and they have deputed the surveyor for inspection and assessment of the damage caused.  The surveyor reports that, the accident occurred after the expiry of the temporary registration certificate (i.e. after 28.10.2011) as true and correct.  The opposite parties submits, as on the date of accident, the said car was not registered.  As such, repudiated the claim and same communicated vide letter dated 22.01.2013 and 26.03.2014.  Hence, there is no deficiency in service on their part and prays for dismissal of the complaint.  
9.    It is established that the complainant’s car met with accident on 11.11.2012, the insurance policy was in force till 28.09.2013.  The car has temporary registration certificate valid till 28.10.2011.  The complainant’s claim under the policy, based on the Surveyor’s report, the opposite parties repudiated the claims as per the terms of the policy and prevailing rules under the Motor Vehicles Act.  This information has been communicated to the complainant, vide letter dated 22.01.2013 and 26.03.2014.
10. The opposite parties relied on judgement rendered by the Hon’ble National Commission, in Naveen Verma V/s M/s Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd., in Revision Petition No.145/2013, it was held that, “No person shall drive motor vehicle in a public place without a valid registration certificate issued by the concerned competent authority in accordance with the provisions of the Act”.
11. In view of the above, we opine that, certainly there is violation of the terms and conditions of the Act and the policy.  So, the opposite party’s have rightly repudiated the claims under the policy.  Accordingly, we answer point No.1 in the negative.

12. Point No.2:- In view of the above observations, we proceed to pass the following

:: O R D E R ::

1. The complaint is dismissed.
2. Give the copies of this order to the parties, as per Rules.

(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed, typed by her, transcript corrected by us and then pronounced in open court on this the 25^th November 2016)

                          (H.M.SHIVAKUMARA SWAMY) 

                                      PRESIDENT     

(M.V.BHARATHI)                           (DEVAKUMAR.M.C.)

     MEMBER                                         MEMBER