IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
SONITPUR AT TEZPUR
District: Sonitpur
Present: Smti A. Devee
President,
District Consumer D.R Forum,
Sonitpur, Tezpur
Sri P.Das
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sonitpur
Smti S.Bora
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum,Sonitpur
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.02/2017
1.Sri Simanta Das : Complainants
S/o Late Bhogram Das
Resident of Dhekiajuli
P.O & P.S: Dhekiajuli
Dist:Sonitpur (Assam)-784001
Vs.
1.National Insurance Co.Ltd. : Opp. party
3 Middleton Street, Prafulla Ch. Sen Sarani
Kolkata-700071.
2.The Divn.Manager
Natioanl Insurance Co.ltd.
Guwahati Divnl. Office-II Panbazar,
Kamrup(Metro)Assam
3.The Senior Divnl Manager
National Insurance Co.Ltd.
Guwahati Divnl. Office-II Panbazar
Kamrup(Metro) 781001, Assam
Appearance:
Snt Lina Devi, Advocate. : For the Complainant
Sri P.K Sarmah, Advocate : For the Opp. party
Date of argument : 06/09/2017 & 22-09-2017
Date of Judgment : 10-10-2017
JUDGMENT
The facts of the case as disclosed in the complaint, in brief, are that complainant being an unemployed youth belonging to the Scheduled Caste, on application to the Directorate of Welfare of Schedule Caste, Assam and on payment of Rs.2,02,368/- was sanctioned a TATA Winger vehicle under the Mukhya Mantrir Assam Bikash Yojana on 07-07-2014, and the department also issued Form 20 for registration of the said vehicle by the dealer ‘Kiron Transport Company Pvt. Ltd’. Adabari, Guwahati, while, simultaneously endorsing a copy thereof to the District Transport Officer, Tezpur, for information and necessary action. The complainant at the time of taking delivery of the vehicle from the said dealer got the same insured with the opposite party Insurance Company by paying insurance premium of Rs.30,326/-to cover the period 07-07-2014 to 06-07-2015. But as alleged, the vehicle was stolen in the wee hours of 17-08-2014 at around 2:30 to 3.00 am from the residence of the Complainant. Insurance claim was accordingly lodged but his claim was turned down on 13-01-2016 on the ground of non-submission of Registration Certificate of the vehicle, imputing the Complainant for laches on his part for not depositing the registration fees either to the dealer of the vehicle or the RTO despite submission of Form No.20 dated 14-07-2014. Alleging deficiency in service against the opposite party the Complainant is thus, before the Forum praying relief to the extent of IDV of the vehicle at Rs.6,66,340/- plus interest @12% thereon and Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation for mental pain, agony sufferings etc. from the opposite party.
- Opp. Party contested the case by filing written version contending in main over the violation of Insurance Policy by the complainant in not registering the vehicle as required under M.V Act.
- Complainant tendered his evidence on affidavit exhibiting several documents thereunder. Opposite party declined to adduce evidence of any witness and preferred to remain content by cross-examining the complainant.
Points for determination
- Whether there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in repudiating the claim ?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief ?
DECISION WITH DISCUSSION
4.Point No.(i):-We have gone through the entire materials on record and given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us. The insurance company repudiated the claim lodged by the Complainant on the sole ground of not having Registration certificate of the vehicle at the time of theft.
5. The vehicle was purchased on 07-07-2014 and the same was stolen on the intervening night of 16th and 17th August,2014. According to the complainant “due to his medical conditions” he could not get his vehicle registered. Complainant neither in the complaint nor in his evidence in chief stated about the nature of ailment. The opposite party by cross-examining the complainant
has proved one medical certificate and one prescription submitted by the complainant before it for settlement of his claim. The said documents are marked as Ext-“A” and “B” respectively.
6. Ext “A” certificate was issued on 20-08-2014. As per Ext”A”, Complainant was suffering from acute enteric fever & Jaundice and anaemia, for last three days. He was treated at Dhekiajuli CHC on 20-07-2014 and advised to take rest for one month with effect from 20-07-2014. Ext”B” is silent about the advice of taking rest for one month. Evidently, neither in Ext”A” nor in “B” registration number of the patient is mentioned. That apart, Complainant failed to produce Blood Test Report as advised in Ext”B” either before the Insurance Company or before this Forum to substantiate his claim of ailment.
In absence of any supporting document, we have no hesitation to accept the claim of the opposite party that the medical documents (Ext-A & B) were unfairly procured.
7. Advancing argument, learned Advocate Smti Lina Devi, appearing for the Complainant vehemently submitted that since the vehicle was duly insured with the opposite party, so non- registration of the vehicle could not be a ground to repudiate the claim of the complainant. The Insurance Company has nothing to do with registration and/or non-registration of vehicle. Proper authority to deal with such matter is Transport authority under the Motor vehicles Act. The Insurance Company is to see only-whether the vehicle was stolen away during the period of Policy coverage or not. The Insurance Company whimsically rejected the claim within the period of coverage of the Insurance Policy on the ground of non-registration, which is not sustainable in the eye of law, learned advocate Smti Devi has asserted.
8. Learned Advocate Sri P.K Sarmah, appearing for the opposite party, placing reliance on the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in (i) Narinder Singh vs. New India AssuranceCo.Ltd. & Others (2014) 9 Supreme Court Cases 324 and (ii) Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. vs. Vikram Kanda, 2016 SCC Online NCDRC 1108, decided on September 1, 2016 submitted that non-registration of vehicle is a fundamental breach and the Insurance Company has rightly rejected the claim of the Complainant.
9. We have gone through the aforementioned judgments very meticulously. The Hon’ble Apex Court held that registration of a vehicle is mandatory under Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and for non-registration the Insurance Company could legally and validly repudiate the claim of the insured, irrespective of the fact-whether the vehicle is parked or plying at the time of occurrence.
10. In the light of above judgments of the Apex Court, we have no other option but to decide the Point No.(i) in the negative, i.e., against the Complainant.
11.Point No.(ii):- In view of decision of foregoing point No.(i) decided against the Complainant, the latter is entitled to nothing in this case under the Policy for the vehicle in question. The Point No.(ii) is decided accordingly in favour of the opposite party.
O R D E R
Consequently, the complaint stands dismissed. However, parties are left to bear their own cost.
Given under our hands and seal of this Forum this 10th day of October,
2017.
Dictated and corrected by: Pronounced and delivered
( A.Devee)
President (A. DEVEE)
District Consumer D.R Forum,Sonitpur President
Tezpur District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Sonitpur,Tezpur
We agree:- (P.DAS) (SMT.S.BORA)
Member Member
