BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Complaint No.159/2018.
Date of instt.:16.05.2018.
Date of Decision: 27.05.2019.
The Risaliakhera Ajaib Gir Cooperative Transport Society Limited, Risaliakhera, Tehsil Dabwali, District Sirsa, through its President Jaswinder Singh son of Gulab Singh.
……….Complainant.
Versus
- National Insurance Company Limited, Regional Office-II, SCO 332-334, SEC 34-A, 3rd Floor, Chandigarh- 160022, through its Regional Manager/ Officer Incharge/ Authorized Signatory.
- Branch Office at Rania Business Centre, Opposite Singla Motors, near Bus Stand, Sirsa road, Rania, District Sirsa.
..……..Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: SH.R.L.AHUJA…………………………PRESIDENT
SH.ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL …… MEMBER
MRS.SUKHDEEP KAUR………MEMBER.
Present: Shri S.L.Sidhu, Advocate for the complainant.
Shri Ravinder Monga, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
In brief, the case of the complainant is that complainant society had purchased one new Bus (without body) and before taking the delivery of this vehicle from the showroom, the complainant had got this bus insured from opposite parties vide insurance policy No.426020311610002159 valid for the period 1.2.2017 to midnight of 31.1.2018 issued by op no.2. That said vehicle/body was sent to Ramgarhia Body Builders, Bhadur, District Barnala for making/ installing the body over the chassis of the vehicle for plying the same on the road as a Bus. That the above said vehicle met with an accident on 5.4.2017 at 8.30 a.m. near village Rori, Tehsil and District Sirsa in which the above said bus was damaged because a blue cow all of a sudden came at the road. The complainant had immediately informed the op’s company regarding the accident and as per the directions of the company, the complainant had paid an amount of Rs.3800/- as fee of the survey and accordingly the survey was conducted by the surveyor of the company. The surveyor of the company had assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.44600/- besides tax amount, GST i.e. for total amount of Rs.54060/-. It is further averred that complainant lodged his claim for aforesaid amount plus Rs.3800/- being the fee of surveyor but the ops continued putting the complainant off by one way or the other. That ultimately, the op company has declined to make payment on the ground that on the date of accident, there was no registration of this vehicle and the temporary number is valid for one month. In this regard, it is submitted that about two months time was spent in making body of the vehicle and thereafter, the said vehicle met with an accident and in this way the delay in getting the registration of the vehicle within the prescribed period is not intentionally or willful but beyond the control of complainant. It is further averred that claim of complainant has been declined on wrong and baseless grounds. The insurance of the vehicle was done on the basis of engine and chassis number of the vehicle and not on the basis of registration certificate. The registration No. HR57-A 1532 was thereafter allotted by the Registering Authority, Sirsa on payment of requisite fee including late fee etc. That the complainant being the lawful owner of the above said vehicle is entitled to get aforesaid insurance amount and the denial of the same is wrong and illegal. It is further averred that despite several demands and requests of complainant, the op company refused to pay the amount of insurance to the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant got issued a legal notice dated 20.4.2018 to the ops but to no effect and now the ops have refused to admit the claim of complainant about two days ago. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite parties appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability, estoppal, complainant is not a consumer, suppression of material facts and that as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, society does not fall within the definition of consumer, so the complaint is out rightly liable to be dismissed being not maintainable and against the jurisdiction. It is submitted that it has transpired that the temporary registration of the insured vehicle was valid for 30 days from 1.2.2017 whereas the vehicle was got registered from Registering Transport Authority, Sirsa on 13.6.2017. So, as per the factual position on the day of alleged accident dated 5.4.2017, the vehicle was not registered and being plied on the road as an unauthorized vehicle. The complainant lodged his claim before the company and a letter dated 13.3.2018 was written to the complainant. The complainant instead of giving reply, sent a legal notice on 24.4.2018 and reply to the same was given on 7.5.2018 by giving the fact that as per section 43(2) temporary registration certificate is valid for one month and in case the vehicle is detained on a workshop beyond the said period of one month for fitting of the body, the period may, on payment of such fee, if any as may be prescribed be extended by such further period or periods as the registration authority or other prescribed authority, as the case may be, may allow. Thus, it is very clear that unless the authority has extended the period of temporary registration, the same remained valid upto 30 days from the date of issue of temporary registration. In the instant case, no extension of time was sought and there was no RC, valid temporary or permanent, so the repudiation of claim by company is justified, lawful and sustainable in the eyes of law. With these averments, dismissal of complaint prayed for.
3. The parties then led their respective evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
5. The perusal of the record reveals that complainant in order to prove his case has furnished his affidavit Ex.CW1/A wherein he has reiterated all the averments made in complaint. The complainant has also furnished copy of legal notice Ex.C1, postal receipts Ex.C2, Ex.C3, copy of motor survey report Ex.C4, copy of policy schedule Ex.C5, copy of RC Ex.C6, copy of estimate Ex.C7, copy of tax invoice of body Ex.C8 and copy of history of paid road tax Ex.C9. On the other hand, ops have furnished affidavit of Sh. V.K. Gumber, Divisional Manager Ex.RW1/A, copy of letter dated 23.10.2018, copy of reply to legal notice Ex.R2, copy of letter dated 13.3.2018 Ex.R3, copy of verification report Ex.R4 and copy of form no.24 Ex.R5.
6. It is an admitted fact between the parties that complainant had purchased chassis for Bus bearing engine no.GAEZ412954, chassis No.MBIPCEHD7GEAV4527 which was got insured from ops for the period 1.2.2017 to 31.1.2018. As per averments made in the complaint, after getting insurance of the vehicle, said vehicle was sent to Ramgarhia Body Builders, Bhadur, District Barnala for making the body over chassis of this vehicle and for making use of the same as a Bus for plying on the road as Bus. The vehicle met with an accident on 5.4.2017 in which above said Bus was damaged because an animal (blue cow) all of sudden came on the road. The complainant informed the ops and lodged a claim of Rs.54,060/- including survey fee of Rs.3800/- which was paid by complainant and for the amount which complainant has spent on repair of the vehicle. The vehicle was temporarily registered with the registering authority. The claim of complainant was repudiated by the ops on the ground that temporary registration of the vehicle was only valid for a period of 30 days and thereafter same was invalid.
7. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for complainant has contended that ops had insured the chassis of the vehicle without body with engine and chassis number and registration number was not mentioned in the policy at that time, as such ops are liable to pay the claim. On the other hand, there is specific contention of learned counsel for ops that as per provisions of Section 43(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, temporary registration was valid only for 30 days and thereafter in case, the owner wants to get it extended he has to apply for the same with the requisite fee which was not applied by the complainant due to reason best known to him, as such the ops are not liable to pay any claim and which was rightly repudiated.
8. Section 43(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 is reproduced as under:-
(2) A registration made under this section shall be valid only for a period not exceeding one month, and shall not be renewable:
Provided that where a motor vehicle so registered is a chassis to which a body has not been attached and the same is detained in a workshop beyond the said period of one month for being fitted (with a body or any unforeseen circumstances beyond the control of the owner), the period may, on payment of such fees, if any, as may be prescribed, be extended by such further period or periods as the registering authority or other prescribed authority, as the case may be, may allow.
9. It is proved fact on record that complainant did not get period of temporary registration certificate extended for a further period nor he has placed on record any copy of application or deposit receipt of the requisite fee nor the complainant has proved on record that complainant had deposited requisite taxes of the vehicle or has not placed on record any such document from which it could be presumed that the Motor Vehicle Inspector had inspected the vehicle and had issued certificate of fitness of the vehicle being road worthy. Section 39 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 provides that “ 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.” So, it is proved on record that vehicle was not having registration certificate at the time of accident which is clear violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy as well as provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act and it appears that ops have rightly repudiated the claim of complainant.
10. In view of the above, the complaint of complainant does not appear to be maintainable and same is hereby dismissed but with 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.
Announced in open Forum.
President,
Dated:27.05.2019. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
Member Member
DCDRF, Sirsa DCDRF, Sirsa
