Haryana

Jind

CC/10/2016

Hunney Singroha - Complainant(s)

Versus

NIA - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. P.K. Mittal

29 Nov 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
FORUM, JIND. 
                                                Complaint Case No : 10 of 2016
                                                Date of Institution   :  21.1.2016
                                                  Date of Decision      : 29.11.2016

Hunney Singroha (aged about 26 years) s/o Sh. Satvir Singh r/o House No.3610, Urban Estate, Jind.
                                                                              ….Complainant.
                                       Versus
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. through its Branch Manager, Branch Office S.C.O. No.23-24, IInd Floor, LIC Building HUDA Ground Urban Estate, Jind.
Malwa Carzone Pvt. Ltd. N.H. 1, 118/1, K.M. Stone, G.T. Road, Karnal through its Proprietor.

                                                                 …..Opposite parties.

                          Complaint under section 12 of the
                          Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

CORAM: SH.A.K. SARDANA PRESIDENT.
      SMT. BIMLA SHEOKAND, MEMBER.
              SH. M.K. KHURANA, MEMBER.    

Present:  Sh. P.K. Mittal, Adv. counsel for complainant.
          Sh. Vinod Bhardwaj Adv. counsel for OP No.1 
          Sh. Mohit Sachdeva Adv. counsel for OP No.2.
         
ORDER:

             Brief facts of the  present complaint are that  the complainant  purchased a new car Dutson Go T of Nissan Motors bearing Temporary No. HR-99-UZ TP-8223, Engine No.600181B, Chasis No. MDHZBAADOE7011557 in a sum of Rs.4,13,162/- from OP No.2 and the same was got insured with OP No.1 vide policy No.35340231150300000025 effective from 3.4.2015 to 2.4.2016 after making the payment of requisite premium. The above said car met with an accident on 9.5.2015 and damaged badly. So, complainant informed the OPs regarding the accident of his vehicle and submitted all the necessary documents to the OPs. On the instruction of OPs, the vehicle was taken to the workshop of OP No.2 at Karnal through crane by paying a sum of Rs.3,000/-  to Fauzi Crane Service, Hansi Road, Jind by the complainant where the damaged vehicle of complainant was repaired  by replacing the various parts and the complainant spent a sum of  Rs.1,63,599/- on the repair  of his vehicle. The complainant requested  the OPs to pay the lawful claim amount but the OPs did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant rather repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 28.9.2015 on the ground that “at the time of accident i.e. on 9.5.2015, the vehicle of complainant was not registered  which is breach of the policy terms & conditions” whereas the vehicle was not registered in time due to fault of OP No.2 who had not issued the Form No.20 at the time of sale of vehicle which is very much necessary document for registration of vehicle in the office of Registering Authority, Jind. After repeated demands & requests,  the OP No.2 issued the Form No.20 on 4.8.2015 and thereafter the complainant got registered his vehicle in Registering Authority, Jind. Due to non issuing of Form No.20 by the OPs, the complainant had to pay Rs.11,468/- on account of late fee for registration of vehicle in the office of Registering Authority, Jind. Thereafter, the Registering Authority, Jind issued Registration certificate bearing No. HR31K-1522 in favour of complainant. The complainant further requested the OP No.1 to re-consider his lawful claim but OP No.1 did not pay any heed on the request of complainant.  As such, the complainant has submitted that the OPs are  deficient in not  disbursing the  claim amount to him and  prayed that the complaint be accepted and OPs be directed to make the payment of Rs.2,28,067/- on account of lawful claim, crane charges, late registration fee & compensation  etc. for harassment, mental pain & agony with interest @ 18% p.a. to the complainant. 
2.    Upon notice, OPs appeared through counsels and  filed  separate written statements. OP No.1 urged in the preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable in the present form & complainant has no locus-standi to file the present complaint. On merits,  it has been urged that intimation was given to answering OP regarding alleged accident on 25.5.2015 i.e. after a delay of 16 days. The answering OP deputed Sh. J.K. Sharma an Independent Govt. approved surveyor & loss assessor who  submitted his report on 15.8.2015 to the Company that ‘the alleged accident occurred on 9.5.2015 and temporary certificate of registration of vehicle in question was valid w.e.f. 17.3.2015 to 16.4.2015 which means on 9.5.2015 i.e. on the date of accident, the vehicle was being run on public road/place without registration and thus the complainant has violated the provisions of section 39 & 43 of the Motor Vehicle Act which is breach of policy terms & conditions. As such, the OP No.1 has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 28.9.2015/16.11.2015. Therefore, there is no deficiency on the part of answering OP & prayed for dismissal of complaint with examplary costs. 
3.     OP No.2 urged in the preliminary objections that present complaint is false, frivolous & vexatious one and this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain, try & decide the present complaint since the answering OP is neither working for gain at Jind nor the answering OP have any branch office at Jind within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. On merits,  it has been urged that complainant himself  is at fault who failed to get registered his vehicle in time. At the time of delivery of vehicle, online passing system was not started, owner/ purchaser of the vehicle have to got  his vehicle passed from the District Inspector himself, but the complainant himself did not bother to get his vehicle passed from District Inspector for getting the same registered in time, as such, there is no fault on the part of answering OP. So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP & prayed for dismissal of complaint with  costs. 
4.    To prove his contention, counsel for  complainant tendered  affidavit of complainant as Annexure C-1 along with documents as  Annexures C-2 to C-15  and closed the  evidence. On the other hand, counsel for OP No.1 tendered affidavit of  Sh. R.K. Mehta, Branch Manager as Annexure OP-1, affidavit of Sh. J.K. Sharma Surveyor & Loss Assessor, Karnal as Annexure OP-2 alongwith documents as Annexures OP-3 to OP-12 and closed the evidence whereas Counsel for OP No.2 tendered affidavit of Sh. Ashwani Kumar, Manager as Annexure OP2/A and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.2. 
5.    We have heard  the Ld. Counsel for the parties and gone through  the  record placed on file.  Counsel for complainant argued that car in question was insured with OP No.1 for the period 3.4.2015 to 2.4.2016 and got damaged in an accident occurred on 9.5.2015 within the territorial jurisdiction of District Jind. OPs were informed accordingly and an amount of Rs.1,63,599/- was incurred on the repair of car  but OP No.1 repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that on the day of accident i.e. 9.5.2015, the vehicle of the complainant was not registered with the Registering Authority which is breach of the terms and conditions of the policy whereas there is no fault of the complainant in not registering of the car in question with the Registering Authority since OP No.2 i.e. dealer of the car in question failed  to issue form No.20 to the complainant at the time of sale of the car resulting into non-issuance of the RC by the Registering Authority. On the repeated demands of the complainant, OP No.2 issued form No.20 on 4.8.2015 in favour of the complainant and thereafter complainant got issued RC in his favour on 5.8.2015 by paying a sum of Rs.11,468/- on account of late fee. Thus the OPs are deficient in providing proper services to the complainant and are at fault whereas complainant is not at fault. In the end, the complainant counsel requested for issuance  of a direction to OPs to reimburse the claim amount alongwith interest, late fee and compensation etc.
6.    On the other hand, Ld. counsel for OP No.1 i.e. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. argued that the car in question was having temporary number effective from 17.3.2015 to 16.4.2015 and the alleged accident occurred on 9.5.2015 whereas the intimation of the alleged accident was given to the OP No.1 on 25.5.2015  i.e. after a delay of 16 days. Further, on the day of alleged accident, the vehicle of the complainant was being run on public road/place without registration which is a clear cut violation of the provision of  Section 39 & 43 of the Motor Vehicle Act  and  breach of terms & conditions of policy and thus  OP No.1 has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 28.9.2015/16.11.2015. To support his version, counsel for OP No.1 placed reliance on the case law titled as Narender Singh Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and others 2014 (4) RCR (Civil) page 272 Supreme Court, wherein it has been held that “Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 21 (b)- Motor Vehicles Act, Section 166, Motor Vehicles Act, Section 39 and 43-purchase of new vehicle-Temporary registration expired on 11.1.2006-Accident took place on 2.2.2006 when the vehicle was without any registration-Insurance also expired on 11.1.2006-Insurance company not liable”.  Counsel for OP No.1 further argued that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1 and requested for dismissal of complaint in question. Whereas counsel for OP No.2 argued that there is no any fault of the OP No.2  in not issuing the Form No.20 as alleged in the complaint since at the time of delivery of vehicle, on line passing system  was not started by the Govt. /Registering Authority  and at that time the vehicle has to be got passed from District Inspector by the applicant/purchaser of the vehicle himself by submitting Form No.20 to be filled manually but  the complainant himself did not bother to get his vehicle passed from District Inspector on form 20 and thus there is no any fault on the part of the OP No.2. Rather after starting on-line passing system in August, 2015, the OP No.2 immediately issued form No.20 on the demand of complainant on 4.8.2015 and thus there is no any deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2 and requested for dismissing the complaint with costs. 
7.    After hearing the rival contentions of both the parties as well as perusing the documents placed on file, it is admitted fact on record that vehicle in question was having temporary  registration number effective during the period 17.3.2015 to 16.4.2015 as mentioned in document Annexure C-10 placed on file by complainant and further  on perusal of document Annexure C-14 i.e. RC of the car in question, it reveals that the Registration Certificate of the vehicle in question was issued on 5.8.2015 by the Registering Authority, Jind wherefrom it is safely concluded that on the day of alleged accident i.e. 9.5.2015, the vehicle in question was not registered with Registering Authority which is a clear cut  violation  of Section 39 &43 of the Motor Vehicle Act  resulting into breach of the terms & conditions of the policy in question. So we have no hesitation in holding that the OP No.1 has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant whereas the contention of the complainant that he could not get his vehicle registered with Registering Authority due to non issuance of form No.20 by the OP No.2 is also not believable since  the document Annexure OP-9 placed on file by OP No.1 i.e. affidavit   submitted to OP No.1 insurance company by the complainant on 15.6.2015, specifically says that the complainant could not get registered his vehicle within due time with Registering Authority because he was out of station due to his examination whereas in para No.6 of the complaint, the complainant has alleged that he could not got his vehicle registered with Registering Authority due to non issuance of Form No.20 by the OP No.2 which are self contradictory. As such, we have no option except to discard the contention put-forth by the complainant in his complaint being after thought.
    In view of the facts explained above, we have no  hesitation to dismiss the present complaint being devoid of merits. Hence, the present complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance. 

Announced:
                                                                                                                                                          PRESIDENT    
                                                                                                                                               District Consumer Disputes
                                                                                                                                                    Redressal Forum, Jind. 

                                                                                                                                                             Member

                                                                                                                                                                Member