Haryana

Ambala

CC/105/2015

Sushil Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

NIC.CO - Opp.Party(s)

Rita Suri

08 Mar 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

 

                                                          Complaint case no.        : 105 of 2015

                                                          Date of Institution         : 17.04.2015

                                                          Date of decision   : 08.03.2017

 

Sushil Kumar S/o Sh. Harbhajan Lal R/o 1716/12 Court Road, Ambala City.

 

……. Complainant.

 

 

The National Insurance Company through the Branch Manager, First Floor, Metro Motors, Railway Road, Ambala Cantt.

 

….…. Respondents.

 

 

BEFORE:   SH. D.N. ARORA, PRESIDENT

                   SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER                             

 

 

Present:       Ms. Reeta Suri, counsel for complainant.

                   Sh. V.P. Gupta, counsel for OP.

 

 

ORDER:

                   In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint is that the complainant purchased a new vehicle Bullet bearing engine No. U3K5COEK565786, model 2014 now bearing registration NO. HR-01AK-5116 from Royal Motors Rai Market, Ambala Cantt. and insured the vehicle vide cover note dated 30.09.2014 by OP. Urfortunately, the vehicle in question was damaged regarding which the information was given to the OP by the complainant and the surveyor of the company inspected the said vehicle and vehicle got repaired from the authorized dealer Royal Motors Rai Market, Ambala City. Further submitted that the vehicle repaired and replace the damage part of the vehicle by the Royal Motors vide Bill No. J1260 dt. 08.12.2014 for Rs. 15226 which was paid by the complainant. The complainant intimated the OP about his loss and submitted the bills but the complainant was surprised to received a letter dated 27.01.2015 issued by authorized signatory, motor claim Hub of the company in which OD claim 420400/31/14/6200007597 of complainant was closed as NO CLAIM without giving any reason and caused, only by referring a letter 14.01.2015. In fact no such letter 14.01.2015 was ever received by my client. Further submitted that the complainant visted at the office of OP but the Op always putting off matter on the one pretext or the other. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                Upon notice, OP appeared and filed written statement submitting that a bullet motor cycle bearing Engine No. EK565786 model No. 2014 with the OP vide cover note No.  401407818644 dated 30.09.2014 for the period with effect from 30.09.2014 to 29.09.2015 in the name of Sushil Kumar Harbhajan Lal, 1716/12 Court Road, Ambala City and Insurance Policy No. 420400/31/14/6200007597 as per the terms and conditions of insurance policy on payment of Rs. 2200/- as premium. It is submitted that an intimation was received from the insured that the said vehicle was damaged when suddenly a dog came in front of his motor cycle and the insured’s son who was driving the bike at that time on 25.11.2014 at about 01:30p.m. had applied brakes and steered but the motor cycle skidded and fell to its right road side. Just after receiving the said information, the claim was processed and Sh. Vikas Kohli, Surveyor and loss assessor was deputed for its survey on 26.11.2014 and submitted his report dated 10.12.2014 in which it was revealed that the temporary registration No. of the said motory cycle got expired on 29.10.2014 and the said motor cycle met with an accident on 25.11.2014 and as per the law and terms and conditions of the insurance policy the new insured vehicle was required to be got registered with the registration authority with in a period of one months, but the insured failed to do so and has violated the provisions of the law, terms and conditions of the insurance policy as well as the circular of the GIC.  Further submitted that the insured has failed to submit the registration certificate issued by the registering authority, Ambala and under the circumstances a letter dated 14.01.2015 requesting the insured to comment whether his vehicle was registered at the time of accident as per terms and conditions of the policy but the insured failed to submit any such documents. Due to above said reasons, the claim of the complainant is being closed as NO Claim as is it not feasible to keep file open for such along period.

3                 To prove his version complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure C-X along with documents as annexure C-1 to C-8 and close his evidence. On the other hand, counsel for OP has also tendered affidavits as Annexure R-1 alongwith with documents as Annexure R-2 to R-11 and closed his evidence.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the case file. It is admitted fact that the complainant purchased a new vehicle bullet 350CC Royal motor vide invoice dated 30.09.2014 as annexure C-2 and temporary No was issued HR995W(T)3264 as mentioned in the invoice and vehicle in question was insured as the said vide cover note 401407818644 for the period from 30.09.2014 to 29.04.2015. It is not disputed that vehicle in question was damaged on 25.11.2014 and complainant intimated to the OP. Thereafter, OP appointed a  Surveyor who inspected the vehicle in question and assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 13429/- the vehicle was got repaired from the authorized dealer and replaced the damaged part of vehicle vide bill No. 51260 dated 08.12.2014   of Rs. 15226/- as is clear from Annexure C-2. The claim of the complainant has been rejected by OP on the ground that temporary registration of said motorcycle got expired on 29.10.2014 at the time of accident and the new insured vehicle was required to be got registered within period of one month and same has not got registered at the time of accident and failed to submit new registration certificate. The counsel for complainant has drawn our attention Section 39 of Motor Vehicle Act as under:-

                   Necessity for Registration- 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.

                   Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a motor vehicle in possession of a dealer subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the central Government.

                   It is proved on file that vehicle was not registered on the date of accident and validity of temporary number had already been expired on 30.10.2014. Accident occurred on 25.11.2014 as per claim form Annexure R-6. The vehicle in question was being driven by complainant and it was got damaged when suddenly a dog  came in front of the vehicle and because of impact vehicle fell on the road side. To strengthen his case, counsel for OP has placed reliance on case law settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India case titled Narinder Singh Vs. New India Assurance Co. ltd. and ors. C.A. No. 8463 of 2014 arising out of SLP (C) No. 26308 of 2013 wherein it has been held that “Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, Sections 39 and 192 –Registration of vehicle motor insurance –own damage claim- using vehicle without registration liability of insurance company-owner purchased pick up van and got it temporarily registered for one month-vehicle met with accident after expiry of registration and was damaged- Insurance company repudiated claim for damages on the ground that driver had no valid and effective driving licence and vehicle had not been registered after expiry of temporary registration – Owner filed complaint under Consumer Protection Act and District forum allowed 75 per cent of the cost as compensation with interest- State Commission dismissed the complaint- National Commission found that driver had valid driving licence but vehicle was being driven without registration which is prohibited under Section 39 and is an offence under Section 192 and dismissed the revision petition- SLP by owner seeking settlement of claim on non-standard basis instead of its rejection in toto-whether using vehicle on public road instead of its rejection in toto-Whether using vehicle on public road without registration is an offence punishable under Section 192 and a fundamental breach of terms and conditions of policy – Held: Yes, owner is not entitled to be reimbursed by the insurance company for damage to vehicle in accident.

5                 In view of the above discussion, it is clear that the complainant was using the vehicle on the public road without registration number is an office under Section 192 of the Motor vehicle Act and violation of the Section 39 of the Motor Vehicle Act. The above said law cited (Supra) is squarely covered the facts of present case. Thus, the complainant is not entitled the repair amount from the OP. Hence, the present case is hereby dismissed. Copies of the order be sent of parties concerned as per rule. File be consigned to record room after due compliance. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

Announced on :08.03.2017                                      

                                                                                      Sd/-

                                                                               (D.N. ARORA)

                                                                                       President

 

                        Sd/-

     (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                                       Member