Date of Filing : 06.06.2011

  Date of Order : 20.03.2012

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR

Dated 20^th MARCH 2012

PRESENT

Sri. H.V. RAMACHANDRA RAO, B.Sc., BL,   …….                PRESIDENT

Sri. T.NAGARAJA, B.Sc., LLB.                        ……..     MEMBER

Smt. K.G.SHANTALA                                         ……..     MEMBER

Consumer Complaint No. 140 / 2011

Sri. Ravi Shankar.M.

S/o. Muninachegowda,

Aged about 45 years,

R/o. Ravi Buildings, 3^rd Cross,

Muneshwara Nagar,

Near Srirama Temple,

Kolar – 563 101.

(By Sri. V. Sridhar, Adv.)                                       ……. Complainant

V/s.

M/s. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

Branch Office, Opp. to New Kolar Nursing Home,

Near State Bank of India, Kuvempunagar,

Kolar – 563 101.

Rep. by its Manager.

(By Sri. B. Kumar & another, Adv.)                        …… Opposite Party

ORDER

By Smt. K.G. SHANTALA, MEMBER

This Complaint is filed by the Complainant seeking direction against the OP to pay the cost of damages of his repaired vehicle i.e., Rs.16,171/- along with interest @ 12% P.A. from the date of submission of claim till its realization and also such other reliefs as would be deemed fit alleging:

That the Complainant purchased a Toyota Qualis vehicle and obtained temporary registration number from the concerned RTO through the Dealer.  He insured the vehicle with OP Company on 24.01.2011 by declaring I.D. value of the said vehicle as Rs.11,83,776/- for which the OP issued cover note.  After expiry of temporary Registration period, the Complainant had parked his vehicle in his compound and on 03.03.2011 the Complainant’s brother-in-law was removing the vehicle for getting permanent registration and at that time the vehicle came in touch with the compound wall resulting in damage to the vehicle.  The Complainant informed the Insurance Company immediately and shifted the vehice to the authorized dealer and got repaired the vehicle paying Rs.16,171/- and submitted claim form to OP on 30.03.2011 and he received letter from OP that his claim was repudiated for violation of Policy conditions. Soon after that the Complainant obtained Permanent registration.  Repudiation of the claim by OP amounts to deficiency. 

2.       The OP filed version admitting the Complainant’s temporary Registration and contended that at the time of accident (causing damage) there was no valid registration and thereby the Complainant had breached the Policy terms & conditions and also Sec. 39 of Motor Vehicles Act repudiation was justified.

3.       On perusal of the averments, affidavits and documents of both parties, the points that arise for our consideration are:

(A)     Whether there is deficiency on the part of OP?

          (B)     If so, to what relief / relief/s the Complainant is entitled to?

4.       Our findings on the above points are as under:

          (A)     Affirmative

          (B)     As per final order

5.       Point Nos. A & B – Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act states that “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.  Provided that nothing inn this section shall apply to a motor vehicle in possession of a dealer subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government”. However, in this case the Complainant had not plied the vehicle, but had parked the vehicle within his compound and on the fateful day while removing it, the damage was caused to the vehicle, when it came in contact with the Compound Wall on the way out for getting permanent registration.  In this case, the temporary registration had expired.  There was no suspension or cancellation of registration.  Soon after the incidence, complainant obtained permanent registration.  The conduct of the Complainant is a very relevant factor.  As such, Insurance Company is liable to pay Rs.12,043/- after deducting on non standard basis towards penalty.  Hence, we hold the Points in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

1.       Complaint is allowed in part. 

2.       The OP shall pay Rs.12,043/- to the Complainant with interest @ 12% P.A. from the date of Complaint till realization within 30 days from today.

3.       OP shall pay Rs.2,000/- as costs of this litigation to the Complainant.

4.       OP shall comply with the order as stated above within the time stated above and submit to this Forum the compliance report with necessary documents within 75 days.

5.       Return extra sets to the parties concerned under the Regulation 20(3) of the Consumer Protection Regulations 2005.

6.       Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected and pronounced in the open Forum on this the 20^th day of March 2012.

T. NAGARAJA          K.G.SHANTALA           H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO

    Member                         Member                                       President

SSS