BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
FORUM, FEROZEPUR.
C.C. No. 297 of 2015 Date of Institution: 14.07.2015
Date of Decision: 20.11.2015
Jeet Singh Bhatti son of Narayan Singh, resident of Haraj Road, Talwandi Bhai, Tehsil and District Ferozepur 8728823850.
....... Complainant
Versus
1. New India Assurance Company, Limited., Regional office Malwal Road, Near Udham Singh Chowk, Ferozepur City through its Divisional Manager.
2. New India Assurance Company Limited, Regd. & Head Office New India Assurance Building, 87 MG Road, Fort Mumbai 400011 through its Managing Director.
........ Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
* * * * * *
PRESENT :
For the complainant : Sh Ashok Gupta Advocate
For the opposite parties : Sh Ashwani Sharma Advocate
QUORUM
S. Gurpartap Singh Brar, President
Smt. Inderjeet Kaur, Member
C.C.No. 297 of 2015 //2//
ORDER
GURPARTAP SINGH BRAR, PRESIDENT:-
Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant got his car bearing registration No.PB-05X-5819 insured with the opposite parties, which was valid from 26.05.2013 to 25.05.2014. The vehicle in question was got financed from HDFC bank Talwandi Bhai. It has been pleaded that the complainant agreed to sell his car to Avtar Singh son of Kartar Singh resident of Adarsh Nagar, Haraj Road, Talwandi Bhai on 17.07.2013. Further it has been pleaded that in the agreement, it was specifically mentioned that the proposed vendee was to pay the entire outstanding loan of HDFC bank Limited Talwandi Bhai. It has been pleaded that an affidavit of sale was to be given to the proposed vendee for transfer of the vehicle in his name after the proposed vendee pay the entire outstanding amount of the bank. This was merely an agreement to sell and not actual sale. The complainant continued to remain as registered owner of the vehicle in question. Unfortunately, the vehicle in question met with an accident with unidentified vehicle near Sugar Mill, Zira. At that time the vehicle was being driven by Gursharan Singh son of Jarnail Singh resident of Ward No.25, Nigaha Road, Moga and Avtar Singh son of Kartar Singh was accompanying him. Avtar Singh son of Kartar Singh died in this accident. Further it has been pleaded that the police officials wrongly written in their report that the vehicle was being driven by Avtar Singh. In this regard, the complainant informed about this accident to the insurance company. The vehicle was brought by the police in its custody, which was lateron taken on supardari by the complainant through the court. The complainant issued reminders to opposite party for appointment of
C.C.No. 297 of 2015 //3//
surveyor to assess the loss on 21.02.2014, who appointed a surveyor namely Sh R.P.Gupta and Krish Associates as investigator. Thereafter, the wrong report of the surveyor, the opposite parties repudiated the claim of the complainant as "No claim". It has been pleaded that the complainant never actually sold the vehicle in question to Avtar Singh, the opposite parties repudiated the claim of the complainant on this ground. There was no occasion for Avtar Singh to get the registration of the vehicle in question in his name. No sale affidavit was given to Avtar Singh by the complainant. Non-paying the insurance claim to the complainant by the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. Complainant has prayed that the opposite parties be directed to settle the claim of the complainant by relasing the insurance amount of Rs.3,32,940/- of the damaged vehicle, to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony, pain and harassment and Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses.
2. Upon notice, opposite parties have appeared and filed their joint written reply to the complaint. In their joint written reply, opposite parties took some preliminary objections interalia that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties; that the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and as such he is not entitled to any relief. The claim was investigated and survey was conducted by M/S Krish Associates and M/S R.P.Gupta and they had providing their findings and observation, which is as under:-
i) That the vehicle is actually sold to Mr. Avtar Singh
ii) That Mr. Avtar Singh has not get registration of the
vehicle in his name.
C.C.No. 297 of 2015 //4//
iii) That Mr. Avtar Singh has not got the insurance of the
vehicle transferred in his name.
iv) That insurable interest does not exist either in the
name of Mr. Jeet Singh Bhatti or Mr. Avtar Singh.
(v) As per police record Mr. Avtar Singh was driving the
vehicle at the time of the accident, but as per affidavit produced Mr. Gursharan Singh son of Sh Jarnail Singh was driving the vehicle.
(vi) Mr. Avtar Singh was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident and died as a result of injurises sustained in the said accident.
(vii) That neither the driving licence nor the D.L. particulars of Mr. Avtar Singh was produced and as such Avtar Singh was not having any valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident.
(viii) That the temporary registration certificate expired on
30.05.2013 and the permanent registration certificate was applied in 12.2013 i.e. after occurrence of the accident, which took place on 16.08.2013.
(ix) That the sale purchase and physical delivery of the
insured vehicle was not communicated to the company.
(x) That the gas kit was fitted in the vehicle at the time of the accident which were neither got incorporated in the registration certificate nor in the policy coverage.
On the basis of the above said facts, observations, findings of the final surveyor and investigator and as per driver clause and policy conditions the
C.C.No. 297 of 2015 //5//
claim of the complainant was not admissible and same was repudiated vide letter dated 01.08.2014. It has been further pleaded that at the material time of loss, the registration certificate of the vehicle was not valid. As per Section 39 of the Motor Vehicle Act:-
“ 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”.
; that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party; that a complicated question of law and facts are involved in the present complaint; that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint and that the complaint is based upon the insurance policy. On merits, the preliminary objections have been reiterated and other allegations of the complaint have been denied.
3 The learned counsel for the complainant has closed evidence on behalf of the complainant by tendering into evidence Ex. C-1 to Ex.C-12. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party Nos.1&2 tendered into evidence Ex.O.P-1&2/1toEx.O.P-1&2/11 and closed evidence on behalf of opposite party Nos.1&2.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record.
C.C.No. 297 of 2015 //6//
5. The insurance of the vehicle of the complainant has been admitted. The accident of the vehicle of the complainant has also been admitted. The grievances of the complainant is that when the vehicle of the complainant met with an accident at that time, the vehicle was being driven by Gursharan Singh, Son of Jarnail Singh resident of Ward No.25, Nigaha Road, Moga and Avtar Singh, Son of Kartar Singh was accompanying him. Avtar Singh,Son of Kartar Singh died in this accident. The Police officials wrongly written in their report that the vehicle was being driven by Avtar Singh. In this regard, the complainant informed about this accident to the insurance company. The opposite parties appointed a surveyor namely Sh R.P.Gupta and Krish Associates as investigator to assess the loss. Thereafter on the report of the surveyor, the opposite parties repudiated the claim of the complainant. The version of the opposite parties are that the complainant has not come to this Forum with this clean hand and as such he is not entitled to any relief. The claim was investigated and survey was conducted by M/S Krish Associates and M/S R.P.Gupta and they had providing their findings and observation and the opposite parties have repudiated the claim on the following ground, which is as under:-
i) That the vehicle is actually sold to Mr. Avtar Singh
ii) That Mr. Avtar Singh has not get registration of the
vehicle in his name.
iii) That Mr. Avtar Singh has not got the insurance of the
vehicle transferred in his name.
iv) That insurable interest does not exist either in the
name of Mr. Jeet Singh Bhatti or Mr. Avtar Singh.
(v) As per police record Mr. Avtar Singh was driving the
C.C.No. 297 of 2015 //7//
vehicle at the time of the accident, but as per affidavit produced Mr. Gursharan Singh son of Sh Jarnail Singh was driving the vehicle.
(vi) Mr. Avtar Singh was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident and died as a result of injuries sustained in the said accident.
(vii) That neither the driving licence nor the D.L. particulars of Mr. Avtar Singh was produced and as such Avtar Singh was not having any valid and effective driving license at the time of accident.
(viii) That the temporary registration certificate expired on
30.05.2013 and the permanent registration certificate was applied in 12.2013 i.e. after occurrence of the accident, which took place on 16.08.2013.
(ix) That the sale purchase and physical delivery of the
insured vehicle was not communicated to the company.
(x) That the gas kit was fitted in the vehicle at the time of the accident which were neither got incorporated in the registration certificate nor in the policy coverage.
6. So far in the observation of the surveyor and in their findings, it is mentioned that the vehicle was actually sold to Avtar Singh and Avtar Singh has not get the registered the vehicle in his name and Avtar Singh has not get the vehicle insured in his name. The complainant himself pleaded in the complaint that the complainant agreed to sell his car to Avtar Singh son of Kartar Singh resident of Adarsh Nagar, Haraj Road, Talwandi
C.C.No. 297 of 2015 //8//
Bhai on 17.07.2013. It was specifically mentioned in agreement that the proposed vendee was to pay the entire outstanding loan of HDFC bank
Limited Talwandi Bhai. It has also been admitted by the complainant in the complaint that an affidavit of sale was to be given to the proposed vendee for transfer of the vehicle in his name after the proposed vendee pay the entire outstanding amount of the bank. The complainant has placed on file copy of agreement Ex. C-11 to prove his version that an agreement to sell that car was sold to Avtar Singh. The complainant has placed on file copy of registration certificate as Ex. C-10, from which it is proved that the complainant is still owner of car. The complainant has placed on file copy of certificate of registration as Ex. C-10, from which it is proved that Avtar Singh has not get registration of the vehicle in his name. The complainant pleaded in the complaint that the complainant agreed to sell his car to Avtar Singh son of Kartar Singh resident of Adarsh Nagar, Haraj Road, Talwandi Bhai on 17.07.2013. It was specifically mentioned that the proposed vendee was to pay the entire outstanding loan of HDFC bank Limited Talwandi Bhai. It has also been submitted that an affidavit of sale was to be given to the proposed vendee for transfer of the vehicle in his name after the proposed vendee pay the entire outstanding amount of the bank. Avtar Singh is not owner, he is only proposed vendee. The registration is still in the name of the complainant.
7. From the pleadings and evidence it is proved that the complainant is still owner of the vehicle in question and the complainant has insuranceable interest exist in the name of the complainant. To prove
C.C.No. 297 of 2015 //9//
their version, the opposite parties have placed on file copy of report of investigation/surveyor as Ex. OP-1&2/5 and Ex. OP-1&2/2. But the complainant has not placed on file any evidence to rebut the allegation of the surveyor report. The opposite parties pleaded in their written reply that at the material time of loss, the registration certificate of the vehicle was not valid as per Section 39 of the Motor Vehicle Act. The complainant has placed on file copy of certificate of registration as Ex. C-10 in which the date of registration of vehicle is mentioned as 12.10.2013 and the accident took place on 16.8.2013 and certificate of registration was issued on 12.10.2013. According to the report of investigator that the Temporary Registration Certificate had expired on 30.5.2013. As per Section 39 of Motor Vehicle Act:-
“ 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”.
8. The perusal of Section 39 shows that no person shall drive the motor vehicle in any public place without any valid registration granted by the registering authority in accordance with the provisions of the Act. As per report of surveyor, the temporary registration was granted in respect of the vehicle in question, which had expired on 30.5.2013 and alleged
C.C.No. 297 of 2015 //10//
accident took placed on 16.8.2013 when the vehicle was without any registration. Nothing has been brought on record by the complainant to show that before or after 30.5.2013, when the period of temporary registration expired, the complainant/owner of the vehicle either applied for permanent registration as contemplated under Section 39 of the Act or made any application for extension of period as temporary registration on the ground of some special reasons. In our view, therefore, using a vehicle on the public road without any registration is not only an offence punishable under Section 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act, but also a fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of Policy contract.
9. In our opinion the complainant has not entitled to claim any compensation for damages in respect of the vehicle, when the vehicle was being driven on the accident without any valid registration. Reliance can be made in Narinder Singh Versus New India Assurance Company Ltd. and others, decided on 4 September, 2014 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in Civil Appeal No.8463 of 2014. (In the latest Judgment on the subject delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on 4th September, 2014 in the mater between the appellant Narinder Singh Vs. Respondent New India Assurance Company Limited in civil appeal No.8463 of 2014, arising out of SLP(Civil) No.26308 of2013, the Hon’ble Division Bench had dismissed the appeal filed by the insured, expressing their view that, “using a vehicle on the public road without any registration is not only an offence punishable under section 192 of MV Act but also a fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of the policy contract”.)
C.C.No. 297 of 2015 //11//
10. In view of what has been discussed above, the present complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed without any order as to cost. File be consigned to record room.
Announced (Gurpartap Singh Brar)
20.11.2015 President
(Inderjeet Kaur) Member
