BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Girish Kumar, resident of H.No.2263/6, Manimajra Town, Manimajra, U.T., Chandigarh.

….…Complainant

                           V E R S U S

1]    The General Manager/M.D./R.M. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Regd. & Head Office GE Plaza Airport Road, Yerawada, Pune 411 006.

2]    The Manager/M.D. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.Ltd. SCO No.139-40, Sector 8-C, Ist Floor, Chandigarh.

3]    The Branch Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.Ltd., SCONo.139-40, Sector 8-C, Ist Floor, Chandigarh.

4]    M/s Citi Financial Consumer Finance India Ltd., through its G/Manager/Branch Manager, office at SCO No.407-408, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh.

                                  ..…Opposite Parties

CORAM:  SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL        PRESIDENT

              SH.SIDDHESHWAR SHARMA MEMBER

DR.(MRS) MADHU BEHL       MEMBER

Argued by: Sh. Ramesh Kumar, Adv. proxy for Sh. Prakash Chand,                   Adv. for complainant.

Sh. Rajesh Verma, Adv. for OPs 1 to 3.

Sh. D.K. Singal, Adv. for OP-4

PER SHRI JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDENT

              Succinctly put, the complainant got his Yamaha Motorcycle bearing temporary registration No.CH-25T-8363 insured from OP Insurance Company vide cover note Annexure C-1. The said motorcycle was stolen on 24.2.2008 and necessary FIR was registered with concerned police station vide Annexure C-2.  OP Insurance Company was also informed about the theft upon which they appointed Surveyor to whom all the required documents were supplied. Then claim was filed with OP Insurance Company and thereafter untraced report (Annexure C-7) was also submitted.  But when nothing positive could come out, a legal notice was sent to OP Insurance Company.  However, inspite of all this, OP Insurance Company did not pay the claimed amount and due to their deficient act the complainant had to suffer mental agony, physical harassment and financial loss.  Hence, this complaint.  

2.             In their written reply OPs 1 to 3 admitted that the vehicle in question was insured with them for the period from 16.10.2007 to 15.10.2008 under terms contained in the certificate of insurance.  It has been alleged that the vehicle was driven without registration certificate in violation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act at the relevant time of theft.  However, it has been submitted that on receipt of theft claim of the complainant they wrote letters dated 3.6.2008 and 12.6.2008 requesting for supply of certain documents. After scrutiny of documents they vide letters dated 17.6.2008 and 24.6.2008 requested the complainant to submit registration certificate of the vehicle in order to facilitate the transfer of the same in the name of the answering OPs and when no reply was received the claim was rightly repudiated vide letter dated 2.7.2008. Denying all the material allegations of the complainant and pleading that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

3.             OP-4 in their separate written reply by way of affidavit of their authorized representative, Shri Bimlendu Shekher submitted that the motorcycle in question was hypothecated with them for which the complainant took loan of Rs.35,000/- repayable in 36 monthly instalments out of which an amount of Rs.31,418/- was paid and an amount of Rs.17,417/- was still due as on 30.10.2009. It has been pleaded that as the motorcycle was hypothecated with them so they have got the first right to recover the outstanding dues alongwith interest and incidental charges. Pleading that neither any relief has been claimed nor any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice alleged against them, the OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             Both the parties were given opportunity to lead evidence.

5.             We have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

6.             It is not in dispute that the complainant had purchased the vehicle on 15.10.07 vide Annexure C-1 and was allotted a temporary registration number vide Annexure P-2.  It is specifically mentioned on Annexure P-2 that the said temporary registration number was valid only for 30 days.  Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 provides that a person would not drive any motor vehicle nor the owner would permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place unless it is registered.  It was therefore necessary for the complainant to move an application to the registering authority for registration of the vehicle within 7 days of its delivery as required under Section 41 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Rule 47 of Central Motor Vehicles Rules 1989 so that the complainant got the permanent registration number within the aforesaid period of 30 days.  The complainant however did not apply to the registering authority and continued to ply the vehicle in violation of the law referred to above.  In the mean time the vehicle was stolen and has not been recovered was far.  The police have submitted the untraced report as is clear from Annexure P-7.  The contention of the Learned Counsel for the OPs is that in case of a stolen vehicle, payment of compensation could be made to the owner only, if the registration of the vehicle is transferred in favour of the OP but in this case the registration has not been transferred in their favour and therefore the complainant is not entitled to any compensation. The problem with the complainant is that the vehicle is needed to be produced before the registering authority for inspection as required vide Section 44 of Motor Vehicles Act and only then the registering authority would register the vehicle. Meaning thereby that a stolen vehicle could not be produced before the registering authority and therefore its registration is not possible. The matter however could be resolved if the complainant fills up the forms and executes the documents of its transfer in favour of the OP, so that the vehicle is transferred in their favour, if and when it is recovered. The OPs however cannot refuse to make the payment of compensation simply because the vehicle was not registered on the date of its theft.

7.             In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the present complaint must succeed.  The same is accordingly allowed.  The OPs-1 to 3 are directed to intimate to the complainant, within 15 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, the documents which are required to be executed by the complainant in their favour upon which the complainant would execute the said documents and would undertake to appear before the appropriate authorities as and when asked by the OPs-1 to 3. The OPs-1 to 3 shall within 30 days of submission of documents by the complainant make the payment to OP-4 who had advanced the loan for the purchase of the vehicle and with which the said vehicle was hypothecated.  After deducting the amount due from the complainant, OP-4 would make the payment of the balance amount if any to the complainant within 15 days of receipt of amount from OP No. 1 to 3. If any of the OPs fails to comply with any of the directions issued above it would be liable to pay interest on the total amount of compensation as adjudged by OP No. 1 to 3 with effect from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 3.11.08, till the order is complied with.

              Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.