BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.415 of 2014

Date of Instt. 25.11.2014

Date of Decision :21.05.2015

Vinod Kumar aged about 54 years son of Gopal Krishan R/o Near Air Force Station, Village Chomon, Adampur, District Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. M/s Stan Autos Pvt Ltd, GT Road, Opp.Delhi Public School, Jalandhar through its Mg.Director/Authorized Representative.

2. The Motor Claim Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, 2nd Floor, Satnam Complex, Near BMC Chowk, Jalandhar.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.Sukrant Sharma Adv., counsel for complainant.

Sh.Raman Sharma Adv., counsel for OP No.2.

Opposite party No.1 exparte.

Order

J.S Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite parties on the averments that complainant purchased a Maruti Ertiga ZDI Car bearing chasis No.248655 and engine No.5054236 on dated 26.5.2014 from the opposite party No.1 and at the time of purchase, the complainant paid Rs.28,875/- for insurance of the said car to the opposite party No.2 through opposite party No.1 and the complainant also paid Rs.46102/- for registration of the said car to the opposite party No.1 vide demand draft issued by Syndicate Bank, Adampur. Opposite party No.1 handed the insurance of the said car to the complainant on the day and promised the complainant that the receipt of registration fee will be given to the complainant in few days but the opposite party No.1 lingered on the matter on one pretext or other and the complainant requested many a times to the opposite party No.1 to issue the said receipt of the registration of the said car but all in vain. On dated 29.7.2014 car of the complainant met with an accident and car of the complainant was totally damaged in the said accident and the complainant sent the said car to the opposite party No.1 for repairs and the complainant requested the opposite party No.1 to claim the charges of repair from the opposite party No.2 as the said car is fully insured by the opposite party No.2. The opposite party No.1 filed a claim of the said car vide No.OC-15-1202-1801-00002143 from the opposite party No.2 but the opposite party No.2 served a notice to the complainant on 14.8.2014. The complainant replied the said notice dated 14.8.2014 which was received by the complainant on 21.8.2014 by registered post, in which the complainant informed to opposite party No.2 that the complainant purchased the said vehicle from opposite party No.2 Stan Autos Pvt Ltd., and the complainant also informed to the opposite party No.2 that the complainant had paid full amount to the opposite party No.1 which included the cost of vehicle, insurance premium, registration charges and other charges etc which were paid by the complainant to the opposite party No.1 through demand draft issued by Syndicate Bank, Adampur. Car of the complainant was repaired by the opposite party No.1 and ready to deliver the said car but when the complainant approached the opposite party No.1 they demanded 25% of the total claim of the said car and when the complainant approached the opposite party No.2 for this matter and requested the opposite party No.2 that after paying full amount of insurance premium and registration fee, the complainant is entitled to claim all facilities of insurance claim and due to delay of delivery of said vehicle, the complainant is facing mental and financial harassment but the opposite party No.2 is making false excuse that the complainant failed to deposit registration fee of the said car in time which is the duty of opposite party No.1 to deposit the same in time as the complainant has paid full amount to the opposite party No.1 which include the cost of vehicle, insurance premium and registration charges and other charges. There has been deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties for not delivering the car of the complainant. On such like averments the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to deliver him car. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, only opposite party No.2 appeared and filed a written reply, inter-alia, pleading that the accident took place on 29.7.2014 as per intimation supplied by the complainant. At the time of accident, the vehicle was without registration number violating the Motor Vehicles Act and policy terms and conditions. Even the temporary registration No.PB-08BX/Temp/7854 allotted to the vehicle for the period 26.5.2014 to 25.6.2014 had expired. The vehicle was got registered by the complainant after the accident and permanent registration number allotted to the car is PB-08-CT-5694 and the fee for registration of the vehicle was deposited by the complainant on 2.8.2014. Vide letter dated 14.8.2014 opposite party No.2 informed the complainant that at the material time of accident insured vehicle was not having valid registration certificate and let the opposite party No.2 know within the seven days from the receipt of this letter that why his claim should not be repudiated in respect of violation of Motor Vehicles Act. The complainant gave a vague reply vide letter dated 21.8.2014. It is further pleaded that use of vehicle on the public road without any registration is not only an offence but fundamental breach of terms and conditions of the policy. It denied other material averments of the complainant.

3. Upon notice, Sh.Amit Puri, Manager of opposite party No.1 appeared on 19.2.2015 but absented himself from the proceedings without filing any written reply and as such it was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 30.3.2015.

4. In support of his complaint, learned counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and closed evidence.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 has tendered affidavit Ex.OA alongwith copies of documents Ex.O1 to Ex.O5 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. It is not disputed that insured car of the complainant met with accident on 29.7.2014 and thereafter the complainant lodged the claim with opposite party No.2 but it refused to pay the claim to him on the ground that at the time of accident, the vehicle was not having valid registration certificate. Now firstly, we are to see if the vehicle of the complainant was having a valid registration certificate on the date of accident i.e 29.7.2014? The car was purchased by the complainant from opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.1 allotted temporary certificate of registration Ex.C1 which was valid for 30 days from 26.5.2014. So temporary registration certificate was valid till 25.6.2014. At the time of purchase of the vehicle/car in question, the complainant had paid the registration charges to opposite party No.1. The opposite party No.2 has placed on record copy of receipt of tax i.e registration charges Ex.O2 and from the perusal of the same it is evident that registration charges were deposited by opposite party No.1 on 2.8.2014. This date is mentioned on receipt Ex.O2 and further it is also specifically mentioned that payment was made by Stan Autos Pvt Ltd, Jalandhar. The charges for Smart Card and registration fee + Hypothecation fee was also deposited by opposite party No.1 on 2.8.2014. So it means that on the date of accident on 29.7.2014 the complainant was not having any valid certificate of registration, even the registration charges were deposited after the accident on 2.8.2014 as is evident from receipt Ex.O2 produced by opposite party No.2. So, the opposite party No.2 insurance company is not liable to pay the claim amount to the complainant as on the date of accident the vehicle in question was not having valid certificate of registration which constitute fundamental breach of terms and conditions of the policy. The authorities attached by the complainant with written arguments are on its own facts or no longer applicable. In M/s Saleena Rani Vs United India Insurance Company Limited, Revision Petition No.4235 of 2014 decided by Honble National Commission on 8.12.2014 after relying upon the authority of Hon'ble Supreme Court, it has been held as under:-

"A bare perusal of section 39 afore-extracted, reveals that no person shall use the motor vehicle in any public place without any valid registration granted by the Registering Authority, in accordance with the provisions of the Act. However, according to section 43, the owner of the vehicle may apply to the Registering Authority, for temporary registration, and a temporary registration mark, the same shall be valid only for a period not exceeding one month. The proviso of section 43 clarifies 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 was granted, in respect of chasis to which, body has not been attached, and the same was 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.

In the instant case, as stated above, temporary registration certificate of the car, in question, expired on 8.7.2011. There is nothing on 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 has 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, wherefrom 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 Vehicle 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 (supra), 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 provision 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 on the fact 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".

8. The ratio of this authority is fully applicable on the facts of the present case. So opposite party No.2 can not be held liable to pay any claim amount to the complainant.

9. Counsel for the complainant contended that it was deficiency in service on part of the opposite party No.1 who after obtaining the registration charges at the time of purchase of the vehicle did not deposit the same with the Registering Authority in time and due to its in action the complainant can not be made to suffer and opposite party No.1 is liable for the loss to the vehicle. We have carefully considered the above contentions advanced by learned counsel for the complainant. Notification dated 28.6.2011 No.8/198/1T2/1107 issued by Government of Punjab Department of Transport provides as under:-

"That no vehicle which is sold by the dealer and any native of Punjab shall be allowed to be driven/taken out of the showroom unless the temporary registration number is allotted to the vehicle by the dealer after getting the registration fee, HPA fee and the Motor Vehicles Tax(in lump sum) as fixed by the Government from time to time. The Motor Vehicles Tax and fee etc received from the purchaser/owner of the vehicle shall be deposited online system into the State Bank of India under the relevant head on the same day by the dealer. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ."

10. So as per above notification of State Government, it is duty of the opposite party No.1 to deposit the registration charges online in State Bank of India on the same day but it deposited the registration charges on 2.8.2014 after accident which prima-facie prove deficiency in service on part of the opposite party No.1. As already discussed above, from the receipt Ex.O2 it is evident that registration charges were deposited by opposite party No.1 on 2.8.2014. In this receipt, it is specifically mentioned that payment was made by opposite party No.1 i.e Stan Autos Pvt Ltd, Jalandhar. The opposite party No.1 received the registration charges from the complainant at the time of purchase of the vehicle from it. As per above notification, it is duty of the dealer to receive the registration charges and without receiving the registration charges, the purchased vehicle can not be allowed to move out of the showroom. So due to late deposit of registration charges after accident by opposite party No.1, the opposite party No.2 rightly refused to pay the claim amount as the vehicle was being plied without certificate of registration. So, opposite party No.1 is responsible as it applied for registration certificate after accident which led to refusal of the insurance company to pay the claim amount. In these circumstances, the liability is that of opposite party No.1. The opposite party No.1 absented itself from the proceedings without filing any written reply. So it appears that it has nothing to say in the matter.

11. In view of above discussion, the present complaint is accepted against opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.1 is directed to deliver the car of the complainant in fully repaired condition free of any charges without any delay after receipt of copy of this order. The opposite party No.1 is further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as punitive damages and further Rs.3000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. Complaint against opposite party No.2 stand dismissed. 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

21.05.2015 Member Member President