BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.

Complaint Case No.708 of 2019.

Date of institution: 17.12.2019. 

                                                                       Date of Decision: 13.07.2023.

Mukesh Kumar, aged 33 years son of Shri Jagdish Rai, resident of House No.91, R.S.D. Colony, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.

                                                                             ……….Complainant.

                                                Versus

1. National Insurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office at Sirsa, through its Senior Divisional Manager at Sirsa.

2. Deep Automobiles, Dabwali Road, Near Suraj Cinema, Sirsa, District Sirsa, through its Proprietor/ Manager. 

..……..Opposite Parties.

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION  ACT, 1986.

Before:       SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR……………PRESIDENT                    

                    MRS. SUKHDEEP KAUR……………….…MEMBER.

Present:       Ms. Anita Bansal, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Shri Ravinder Goyal, Advocate for the opposite party no.1.                       

                  Shri N.K. Daroliya, Advocate for opposite party no.2.

ORDER:-

                   In brief, the case of the complainant is that on 26.03.2019 complainant purchased a motor cycle HF Delux from opposite party no.2 for a sum of Rs.38,399/- vide invoice dated 26.3.2019. At that time op no.2 got insured the motor cycle for five years from op no.1 vide certificate No. 39010231186203283012 dated 26.3.2019 valid up to 25.3.2024 for which complainant paid a sum of Rs.6927/- as gross premium. It is further averred that the motor cycle was got registered by op no.2, but applied for its registration on 28.6.2019 i.e. after a gap of three months of its purchase and vehicle was allotted registration No. HR-24AB/8672 on 3.7.2019 and in this manner, the op no.2 unnecessary kept the documents with it for a period of three months. That on 22.05.2019, the aforesaid motor cycle was stolen by some unknown person while same was parked outside his residential house. The complainant immediately informed the police on 100 number and also approached op no.2 and intimated the fact of theft of motor cycle and requested op no.2 to intimate the said fact to insurance company i.e. op no.1 and op no.2 assured him that they will intimate op no.1. It is further averred that on the next day, complainant visited the local police to inquire about the status of his case and he was told to wait for one or two days and as such complainant waited for two days and on 25.05.2019 he again visited the police station but the motor cycle could not be located and therefore, on 25.05.2019 police formally registered case FIR No. 277 dated 25.5.2019 under Section 379 IPC. That complainant lodged his claim with op no.1 and provided all details and documents as required from him, but op no.1 vide letter dated 9.8.2019 has repudiated the claim of complainant due to late registration of the motor cycle, late registration of FIR and late intimation to the company. That ops by their such act and conduct have committed gross deficiency in service towards the complainant and have caused unnecessary harassment to the complainant. The complainant approached the ops on many occasions and requested them to admit his claim but ops did not pay any heed to the same and ultimately complainant got served a legal notice upon the ops on 9.10.2019 but op no.1 did not give any satisfactory reply and declined to accept the claim of complainant. Hence, this complaint.

2.       On notice, ops appeared. Op no.1 filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The complainant did not give immediate information about the theft of his motor cycle to answering op, whereas, as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy, a notice should be given in writing to the company immediately upon the occurrence of theft etc. However, as per documents supplied by complainant, the vehicle was stolen on 22.05.2019 whereas FIR was lodged on 25.5.2019 i.e. after a gap of three days, which is also a serious violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy. It is further submitted that complainant gave information of theft of his vehicle to answering op on 30.5.2019 i.e. after eight days of the incidence which is violation of condition no.1 of insurance policy. Moreover, the vehicle was got registered by complainant on 4.7.2019 which was applied on 26.8.2019 i.e. after the theft of the vehicle. So, on the day of said incidence, the vehicle was not roadworthy, which is also the violation of provisions of Motor Vehicle Act. So, claim of complainant has been repudiated by op no.1 in a legal and lawful manner. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.

3.       Op no.2 also filed written version taking certain preliminary objections regarding locus standi, complainant does not fall within the definition of consumer and that complainant has got no cause of action to file the present complaint against answering op. In fact the answering op was the dealer of the Two Wheeler and is concerned with the sale of vehicle. The answering op had already left the company about four years back and according to the company rules, he cannot retain any record of the vehicle with him after leaving the dealership. Moreover, in respect of the insurance of the vehicle, answering op has no concern at all rather same is in between the insurer and the insured. It is further submitted that without completion of the formalities, the vehicle cannot be handed over to the purchaser meaning thereby when complainant purchased the vehicle, invoice, fitness certificate, delivery challan, temporary number and other requisite certificates and forms were duly handed over to the complainant and thereafter the complainant has to get registered the same from the Registering Authority under MV Act in time and in this whole process of registration of vehicle, there is no role of the dealer or the company and it is solely responsibility of the purchaser of the vehicle to get the same registered with the Registering Authority in time. It is further submitted that complainant has not come to this Commission with clean hands and has concealed the true and material acts and is not entitled to any relief. That complaint is bad for mis joinder and non joinder of necessary parties. It is further submitted that consumer himself is to get the vehicle registered from the competent authority after completion of the formalities as required by the concerned authority and in case of failure of the consumer to fulfill the formalities and to supply the documents to the competent authority, the competent authority cannot be expected to register the same. Moreover, the entire complaint reveals that complainant has not deposited the registration fee, charges and documents etc. with the competent authority. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint qua op no.2 made.

4.       The complainant in evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex. CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C11.

5.       On the other hand, op no.2 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Pawandeep Singh, Proprietor as Ex.R1. Op no.1 has tendered affidavit of Sh. V.K. Gumber, Sr. Divisional Manager as Ex.R2 and documents Ex.R3 to Ex.R6.

6.       We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.

7.       Admittedly the motor cycle in question of complainant bearing engine No. HA11EMKHC10298, chassis No. MBLHAC023KHC09551 purchased by the complainant on 26.03.2019 was insured with op no.1 for five years i.e. from 26.03.2019 to 25.03.2024 and the insured declared value of the motor cycle in question for the first year i.e. from 26.03.2019 to 25.03.2020 as per policy schedule Ex.C3 was Rs.38,380/-. According to the complainant said motor cycle of complainant was stolen on 22.05.2019 when it was parked outside his house and he immediately after coming to know about the theft of the motor cycle intimated the police on 100 number. It is also proved on record that said motor cycle in question of complainant was registered with Registratrion Authority, Sirsa vide registration no. HR-24AB/8672 on 04.07.2019. It is also the case of complainant that op no.1 was also informed about the theft of the motor cycle in question through op no.2. But however, the claim of complainant has been repudiated by the op no.1 vide letter dated 9.8.2019 on the ground of late registration of motor cycle in question, late registration of FIR and late intimation to the insurance company. The complainant has also alleged that delay in late registration of the vehicle, if any is on the part of op no.2 and he is not at fault in this regard. The complainant has placed on file FIR Ex.C8 registered on 25.05.2019. When the complainant has timely informed the police on the date of occurrence i.e. on 22.05.2019 itself and FIR was lodged by the police on 25.05.2019, the complainant cannot be said at any fault for late registration of the FIR because the same is not under the control of complainant and beyond his control. In so far as the plea of late registration of the vehicle with Registering Authority is concerned, the motor cycle was stolen when it was parked outside the house of complainant and same was not being plied on the road without any registration certificate, so it cannot be said that complainant was violating the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act. When the police was informed by the complainant immediately after the incidence and FIR was lodged by the police after due inquiry that motor cycle of complainant was actually stolen from outside his house, therefore, it cannot be said that any prejudice to the insurance company has been caused and it cannot be said that any right of the insurance company for the inquiry of theft of motor cycle has been defeated. So, we are of the considered opinion that op no.1 has wrongly and illegally repudiated the claim of complainant. The authority cited by learned counsel for op no.1 in case titled as New India Assurance Company Ltd., vs. Trilochan Jane FA No. 321 of 2005 decided on 9.12.2009 (NC) is not applicable because the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as Gurshinder Singh vs. Sriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. decided on 24.01.2020 while giving the reference of above said judgment of the Hon’ble National Commission has held that “We concur with the view taken in the case of Om Parkash (supra) that in such a situation if the claimant is denied the claim merely on the ground that there is some delay in intimating the insurance company about the occurrence of the theft, it would be taking a hyper technical view.” The above said authority of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is fully applicable in this case. In these circumstances, the repudiation of genuine claim of the complainant by op no.1 on above said technicalities is hereby set aside and complainant is entitled to the insured declared value of motor cycle in question i.e. Rs.38,380/- from op no.1.

8.       In view of our above discussion, we allow the present complaint qua opposite party no.1 insurance company and direct the op no.1 to pay the claim amount of Rs.38,380/- to the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which complainant will be entitled to the above said amount of Rs.38,380/- from op no.1 alongwith interest @6% per annum from the date of this order till actual realization. We also direct the op no.1 to further pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as composite compensation for harassment and litigation expenses to the complainant within above said stipulated period. The complainant will have to furnish an affidavit/ undertaking to the op no.1 that he will have no claim on the motor cycle in question if same is recovered/ found in future. However, no liability of op no.2 of any kind is made out and as such complaint qua op no.2 stands dismissed. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.  

Announced:                            Member                            President,

Dated:13.07.2023.                                                 District Consumer Disputes

                                                                         Redressal Commission, Sirsa.

JK