BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 222 of 2013
Date of Institution : 17.12.2013
Date of Decision : 28.9.2016.
Jagtar Singh son of Harchand Singh, resident of village Bachhoana, Tehsil Sardoolgarh, Distt. Mansa.
….Complainant.
Versus.
- The New India Insurance Company Ltd., Hisar Road, Main Bus Stand Sirsa, through Branch Manager.
- The New India Insurance Company Branch Office 353501, 6269 Nicklson Marg, Ambala Cantt. (Haryana) through Branch Manager.
...…Opposite party.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI S.B.LOHIA ………………………..PRESIDENT.
SHRI RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL ……MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Purshotam Phutela, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Rakesh Bajaj, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
In brief, the case of the complainant is that complainant had purchased a Verito Car from Garg Motors Sirsa and registration No. PB-31J-4646 was allotted to it. On 1.1.2013, the complainant got insured his above said vehicle from op no.2 which was valid from 1.1.2013 to 31.12.2013 and complainant had paid the premium for the same. It is further averred that on 31.1.2013 Ranjit Singh friend of the complainant had taken his car for going to Delhi to bring his mother who was coming from abroad. On 1.2.2013 at about 3.00 a.m. due to heavy fog, the above said vehicle met with an accident with tractor trolley at village Kohad on G.T. road, Distt. Karnal. The accident occurred when Ranjit Singh was coming back with his mother Gurdeep Kaur from Delhi to his village Gurne Kalan. Gurdeep Singh became seriously injured and died later on and the vehicle of the complainant was also badly damaged. The complainant lodged a rapat No.10(A) dated 1.2.2013 with police station Korinda. Due to shock of accident, the friend of the complainant told to the police that he had taken the vehicle on rent (as a taxi), but he had taken his vehicle being his friend and later on Ranjit Singh had lodged a rapat No.6(A) dated 6.2.2013 in this regard, After the accident, the complainant informed op no.1 and the ops asked the complainant to bring the vehicle at Garg Motors at Sirsa for repair. The complainant had got repaired his vehicle on asking of ops and spent an amount of Rs.2,81,887/- and also spent Rs.12,000/- as transport charges. The complainant submitted the claim to the ops and completed all the formalities but the ops remaining on demanding the record from him time and again and ultimately the ops have rejected his claim. The complainant had taken loan from Punjab & Sind Bank, Bachhoana, Tehsil Budhlada for the purchase of said car. The registration certificate of the car was issued by D.T.O. Mansa. Initially, the complainant moved a complaint before the Consumer Forum at Mansa but the same was returned back for want of territorial jurisdiction. The complainant is an agriculturist and is owner in possession of 10/11 acres land and is having the car for his domestic use and never used it as a taxi and the ops have wrongly rejected the claim of the complainant. Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and contested the complaint by filing written statement asserting therein that complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Ranjit Singh had hired the car from the complainant which fact has been admitted by said Ranjit Singh in rapat No.10(A) on 1.2.2013. The ops on receipt of information about accident, got surveyed the spot of accident from Sh. Deepankur Soni, Surveyor and Loss Assessor, Karnal who investigated the case and reported that that the said car did not hit with a tractor trolley, rather the same hit with the rear side of an accidental truck No.HR-58/4185 which was lying near Kalyan Filling Station, village Kohand. The complainant has concealed and suppressed the true and material facts. The complainant lodged the claim with ops which was scrutinized and got investigated from the Investigator and it was found that at the time of accident, the car was being operated on hire and reward basis and as such the claim was rightly and legally repudiated by the ops vide letter dated 19.9.2013.
3. The complainant has tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C1, affidavit of Ranjit Singh Ex.C2, rapat dated 6.2.2013 Ex.C3, rapat dated 1.2.2013 Ex.C4, and documents mark A to mark N. On the other hand, ops have tendered in evidence affidavit of Surveyor Ex.R1, survey report Ex.R2, copy of rapat dated 1.2.2013 Ex.R3, repudiation letter Ex.R4, copy of statement of Jaswant Singh as Ex.R5, copy of certificate of insurance Ex.R6 and affidavit of I.C. Sirohi, Divisional Manager as Ex.R7.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
5. There is no dispute before us that complainant is the owner of vehicle in question, which was duly insured with the opposite parties, for the period from 1.1.2013 to 31.12.2013, There is also no dispute before us that in the early morning of 1.2.2013 said vehicle met with an accident on the way from Delhi to Budhlada and rapat Ex.C4 in this regard was lodged in the concerned police station. It is also not disputed that the said vehicle was being driven by one Wajir Singh son of Tahal Singh.
6. The claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the opposite parties mainly on the ground that vehicle in question was being plied on hire and reward basis against the terms and conditions of the policy in question and this fact was admitted by Ranjit Singh in his statement made before the police on 1.2.2013. In the rapat No.10(A) dated 1.2.2013 Ex.R3 which was recorded on the basis of statement of Ranjit Singh son of Jaswant Singh, it is mentioned that car in question was taken on rent by him. The ops have also placed on file copy of statement of Jaswant Singh father of Ranjit Singh Ex.R5 which was recorded in police station Gharaunda on the same day and wherein also it is mentioned that car was taken on rent by his son Ranjit Singh for going to Delhi. There is limitation clause in the policy according to which the policy covers use of the vehicle for any purpose other than hire or reward and carriage of goods etc. So, the opposite parties have proved on record that car in question was being plied on hire and reward basis in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The making of another statement to the police by Ranjit Singh on 6.2.2013 that car was not taken on rent is an afterthought when there is nothing on record to discard the statement of Jaswant Singh father of said Ranjit Singh recorded by the police in which also he admitted that car was taken on rent.
7. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has also argued that the car in question was being plied without registration number as car was registered only on 5.2.2013 as is evident from copy of RC mark L itself and the temporary registration is granted for a period of one month from the date of purchase and the car in question was purchased in the month of December, 2012 and therefore, it is evident that complainant has violated the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act and also violated terms and conditions of the insurance policy. In this regard he has also placed reliance on the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Narinder Singh Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. and others, Vol. CLXXVI (2014-4) PLR 824. We are also convinced with this submission of learned counsel for ops because the car in question was purchased in the month of December, 2012 whereas the registration certificate has been issued on 5.2.2013 i.e. after the date of accident and complainant has failed to tell that on which date he applied for issuance of registration certificate. So, it is proved on record that vehicle in question was without any registration on the date of accident. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above noted case has held that “Temporary registration was granted in respect of the vehicle in question, which had expired on 11.1.2006 and the alleged accident took place on 2.2.2006 when the vehicle was without any registration. Nothing has been brought on record by the appellant to show that before or after 11.1.2006, when the period of temporary registration expired, the appellant, 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. 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.”
8. Thus, as a sequel to our above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that there is no merit in the present complaint and the repudiation of the claim of the complainant by the ops does not call for our interference. Hence, the present complaint is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated: 28.9.2016. Member. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
