BEFORE THE DISTT.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM; BHIWANI.
C.C.No.150 of 2016.
Date of Instt.:18.07.2016.
Date of Order: 12.12.2019.
Priyank Vashistha s/o Sh.Om Parkash r/o H.No.2448 Sector 13, Bhiwani Tehsil & District Bhiwani.
..Complainant.
Versus
1.National Insurance Company Ltd. Head Office : 3, Middleton Street, Kolkata-700071.
2.National Insurance Company Ltd. Tata Pepu Department of Motor Tie-UP Business Royal Insurance Building, 2nd Floor 14, J Tata Raod, Churchgate Mumbai (Maharashtra),400038.
3.National Insurance Company Limited Circular Road, Bhiwani.
..Opposite Parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer
Protection Act, 1986
Before: Sh. Nagender Singh, President.
Sh. Shriniwas Khundia, Member
Present: Sh.Vikal Gargi, counsel for the complainant.
Sh.R.K.Sharma, counsel for the respondent.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT
Brief facts of the present complaint are that complainant had purchased a diesel car Indigo ECS-LX-TDI-BS3-HV from Telmos Automobile Pvt. Ltd. Hisar vide invoice No.A-1112-00723 dated 23.12.2011 for a sum of Rs.4,85,595/- after getting the same financed from Tata Motors Financed Ltd. Hisar. The complainant got insured the said vehicle bearing temporary registration No.HR-99-FT4829 engine No.475IDT14NYYP62851 & chasis No. MAT607161BWN33838 with Opposite party No.1 vide policy No. 25331031116120060863 dated 23.12.2011 having validity from 23.12.2011 to 22.12.2012. Said vehicle was stolen in the intervening night of 17.11.2012/18.11.2012 when it was parked outside the house No.2599. The complainant searched the same but to no avail. He reported the matter to the police and regarding this FIR No.441 dated 18.11.2012 was registered. Information regarding this was also given to the opposite parties. The complainant submitted the requisite documents with the opposite parties on 14.06.2013 with assurance that NCRB report would be sent as and when it is received by him. The complainant submitted the NCRB report with the opposite parties but his claim was repudiated by the insurance company vide letter dated 11.12.2014 with the remarks that the vehicle was not got registered and the temporary registration certificate was not valid at the time of theft. The complainant requested the opposite parties and requested not to reject the claim and to reconsider the claim but to no avail. Due to the act and conduct of the opposite parties, the complainant has to face mental agony and harassment which amounts to deficiency in service on their part.
3. On being served, the opposite parties contested the complaint of the complainant by filing reply taking several preliminary objections such as cause of action, barred by limitation, locus standi, suppression of material facts from this Forum and maintainability etc. It is submitted that the complainant had purchased the vehicle in question and got the same insured with opposite parties vide policy No.25331031116120060863 dated 23.12.2011 having validity from 23.12.2011 to 22.12.2012. The opposite parties have received information regarding theft of the alleged vehicle bearing temporary registration No.HR-99FT-4829 during the intervening night of 17/18.11.2012. As per provisions of Section 43 of Motor Vehicle Act, the complainant failed to get the said vehicle registered within stipulated period of 30 days, therefore, the claim was rightly repudiated and complainant was informed about this vide registered letter No.420303/1306 dated 11.12.2014. There is no deficiency in service on the part opposite parties. Other contentions have been contorverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. In evidence, the opposite parties have 3. Thereafter, both the parties have led their respective evidence. The complainant has tendered documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C23 and closed the evidence on 13.03.2019 whereas the opposite parties have tendered documents Annexure R1 to Annexure R14 and closed the evidence on 08.07.2019.
4. Heard. The counsel for the complainant reiterated the averments made in the complaint and prayed for its acceptance whereas the counsel for opposite parties reiterated the averments made in the written statement and prayed for its dismissal.
5. This fact is not disputed that vehicle in question was insured with the opposite parties vide policy No. 25331031116120060863 dated 23.12.2011 having validity from 23.12.2011 to 22.12.2012 as is evident through Annexure C4. It is also not disputed that the said vehicle was stolen during the intervening night of 17.11.2012 and 18.11.2012 and regarding this an FIR Annexure C6 was registered. The plea taken by the learned counsel for the opposite parties is that the complainant himself has not only violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy but also violated the provisions of Sections 39 & 43 of Motor Vehicle Act as the complainant has failed to get the vehicle registered with the Registering Authority within stipulated period of 30 days. It has been further argued that on the day of theft the vehicle was not registered, therefore, the claim of the complainant was rightly closed as No Claim and repudiated vide letter dated 11.12.2014.
6. Before proceeding further and for better appreciation, Section 39 and Section 43 which are relevant are quoted herein below:-
“39. 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:
"43. Temporary registration.—(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 40 the owner of a motor vehicle may apply to any registering authority or other prescribed authority to have the vehicle temporarily registered in the prescribed manner and for the issue in the prescribed manner of a temporary certificate of registration and a temporary registration mark."
(2) A registration made under this section shall be valid only for a period not exceeding one month, and shall not be renewable:
7. The complainant had purchased the vehicle in question on 23.12.2011 vide Annexure C1 and a temporary registration number was granted which was valid for 30 days. Nothing has been brought on record by the complainant to show that within the stipulated period of thirty days, the complainant had 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 without any registration as per provisions of Motor Vehicle Act 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 as there is nothing on record that after expiry of temporary registration, complainant immediately applied for registration of vehicle with registering authority. Irrespective of fact, whether, vehicle is parked or plying, it is mandatory that vehicle be registered under Section 39 of MV Act, 1988 and not getting the vehicle registered for more than eleven months is fundamental breach. On this point reliance can be taken from case laws titled as Gurpreet Singh Dheri Vs. United India Insurance Company decided by Hon’ble National Commission on 09.05.2018 in Revision Petition No.2807 of 2017 and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Vidya Bal 2015(1) CLT, Page No.518 (NC).
8. Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we find no merit in the present complaint and accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: - 12.12.2019
(Shriniwas Khundia) (Nagender Singh)
Member President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
