BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 176 of 2017
Date of Institution : 20.7.2017
Date of Decision : 21.12.2017
- Sandeep Kaur, aged 32 years, widow of Shri Karamjeet Singh son of Shri Surinder Singh,
- Miss Archna, aged 8 years, minor daughter
- Master Mohit Singh, aged 6 years, minor son of Shri Karamjeet Singh, son of Shri Surinder Singh, both minors through
- Sandeep Kaur-complainant no.1, real mother and natural guardian,
… all residents of village & PO Moriwala, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainants.
Versus.
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., through its Divisional Manager at Hisar.
...…Opposite party.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI R.L. AHUJA…… PRESIDENT.
SHRI MOHINDER PAUL RATHEE……MEMBER.
Present: Ms. Anita Bansal, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Rakesh Bajaj, Advocate for opposite party.
ORDER
The present complaint has been filed by complainant Sandeep Kaur widow of Sh. Karamjeet Singh on her behalf as well as on behalf of complainants no.2 and 3 who are minors being their mother and natural guardian.
2. In brief, the case of the complainants is that husband of complainant no.1 and father of complainants no.2 and 3 namely Shri Karamjeet Singh (since deceased) son of Shri Surinder Singh, resident of village & post office Moriwala, Tehsil and District Sirsa got insured his new Motor Cycle Bajaj CT-100, bearing Engine & Chasis no.PFC06792-PPC06993 with opposite party vide Motor Insurance Policy No.233203/31/2016/1395 dated 15.6.2015 for the period 15.6.2015 to 14.6.2016. It is further averred that Karamjeet Singh died in a road side accident on 22.11.2015 in the area of village Bajekan, Near Rajendera college and a case FIR No.368 dated 23.11.2015, under Sections 279/304A/427 IPC was registered in Police Station Sadar Sirsa in this regard. In the above policy, the insured Shri Karamjeet Singh was also insured for personal accident. So, the complainant no.1 being his widow and complainants no.2 and 3 being his minor daughter and minor son and also being legal heirs are legally entitled to get personal accident benefit of the above insurance policy. The complainants lodged their claim with the op and wrote a letter dated 25.2.2016 in this regard to the op but till date, neither the op has replied the same nor complied with the same nor settled the claim of complainants. The complainants being legal heirs of deceased insured Shri Karamjeet Singh are legally as well as factually entitled to sum assured and op is under legal obligation to pay the same to the complainants. It is further submitted that the complainants approached the ops and requested them to make payment of the sum assured, but the op did not pay any heed to the same. Now a week back, op has refused to do so. Hence this complaint for a direction to the opposite party to make payment of the sum assured i.e. Rs.one lac on account of accidental death of husband of complainant no.1 and father of complainants no.2 and 3 alongwith interest and also to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for harassment as well as litigation expenses.
2. On notice, opposite party appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability, locus standi, suppression of material facts and estoppal etc. It is submitted that at the time of alleged accident, the vehicle i.e. motor cycle in question was not got registered with the Registering Authority and as per information collected by the op, the said motor cycle has not been got registered till date. As per provisions of Sections 39, 43 and 149 of the Motor Vehicle Act, the Temporary registration of a new vehicle is valid only for 30 days. In this case, the vehicle in question is stated to have been purchased on 15.6.2015 and thus as per provisions of the above Sections, the temporary registration of this vehicle was valid upto 14.7.2015 whereas the alleged accident took place on 22.11.2015 i.e. after five months of purchase of the vehicle. So, there is gross violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy as well as provisions of Motor Vehicle Act as well as road traffic rules. It is further submitted that the complaint is pre-mature as the claim of the complainants is under process and has not been finalized as yet. The op wrote letters dated 24.3.2017, 22.5.2017 and 2.8.2017 to the complainants for providing claim form, RC of the motor cycle but till date they have not provided the same to the op. So, the complainants have failed to provide the full details and particulars to the op and are not co-operating the op in settlement of their claim. On this score, the present complaint does not lie at all. It is further submitted that from the bare reading of the complaint, no consumer dispute is made out between the parties and there is no deficiency in service on the part of op towards the complainant. On merits, while admitting the fact of insurance of motor cycle as well as the fact that Karamjeet Singh was also insured for personal accident in the above motor vehicle policy, the pleas taken in the preliminary objections are reiterated, contents of the complaint are denied.
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. Learned counsel for complainants has contended that complainants have proved that husband of complainant no.1 and father of complainants no.2 and 3 Karamjeet Singh got insured his new motor cycle Bajaj CT-100 bearing engine and chassis no. PFC06792-PPC06993 with opposite party for the period 15.6.2015 to 14.6.2016 and the owner of the vehicle was covered under the insurance scheme/ agreement. It is also proved that said Karamjeet Singh died in a road side accident on 22.11.2015 in the area of village Bajekan and FIR to this effect under Sections 279/304A/427 IPC was registered in Police Station Sadar Sirsa and the present complainants are legal heirs of the deceased Karamjeet Singh. After death of Karmajeet Singh they lodged claim with the opposite party but however opposite party repudiated the claim arbitrarily and illegally on the ground that vehicle was not regularly registered and it was having a temporary registration number. Learned counsel for complainants has relied upon judgments reported as 2017(2) PLR 34 titled as National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Jaspal Kaur.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party has contended that vehicle i.e. motor cycle in question was not got registered with the Registering Authority. As per information collected by the op, the said motor cycle has not been registered till date. As per provisions of Sections 39, 43 and 149 of the Motor Vehicle Act, the temporary registration of a new vehicle is valid only for 30 days. The vehicle in question is stated to have been purchased on 15.6.2015. Temporary registration was valid up to 14.7.2015 whereas alleged accident took place on 22.11.2015. The complaint in hand is pre-mature as claim of complainants is under process and has not been finalized as yet. The complainants have not provided copy of registration certificate till date and from the bare reading of the complaint, no consumer dispute is made out between the parties. Learned counsel for the op has relied upon decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Narinder Singh vs. NIAC Ld. and others, 2014(4) PLR 824 and decision of the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in case titled as Ranjeet Singh vs. Permanent Lok Adalat and others, 2017 (1) PLR 267.
7. We have considered the rival contentions of the parties and have gone through the above said authorities.
8 The perusal of the record reveals that complainants in order to prove their plea have furnished affidavit of Smt. Sandeep Kaur complainant no.1 in which she has reiterated all the averments made in the complaint. They have also furnished documents i.e. Ex.C2 copy of FIR, Ex.C3 copy of postmortem report, Ex.C4 copy of death certificate of Karamjeet Singh, Ex.C5 copy of retail invoice, Ex.C6 copy of DL, Ex.C7 copy of insurance policy, Ex.C8 copy of application regarding payment of personal accident benefit, Ex.C9 copy of postal receipt, Ex.C10 copy of aadhar card of Sandeep Kaur, Ex.C11 copy of aadhar card of Archna and Ex.C12 copy of aadhar card of Mohit Singh. On the other hand, opposite party has furnished affidavit of Sh. Sushil Kumar, Senior Divisional Manager as Ex.R1 and copies of letters dated 25.5.2017 and 24.3.2017 as Ex.R2 and Ex.R3.
9. It is undisputed fact between the parties that deceased Karamjeet Singh was the owner of above said motor cycle which was purchased by him on 15.6.2015 and this motor cycle was insured with opposite party against the aforesaid chassis number and engine number. It is further undisputed fact that said Karamjeet Singh was also insured for personal accident for the sum assured of Rs.1,00,000/- as per terms and conditions of the policy. It is also proved fact on record that said Karamjeet Singh died in a road side accident on 22.11.2015 and at the time of accident vehicle was temporarily registered. It is also proved fact on record that op called upon the complainants to submit the registration certificate of the vehicle which they could not produce due to the reason best known to the complainants.
10. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for complainants has strongly contended that as per judgment reported as 2017(2) PLR 34 titled as NIC Vs. Jaspal Kaur (supra), even if the vehicle is not registered, the legal heirs of the deceased are entitled to the personal accident claim of Karmajeet Singh deceased but however, the perusal of the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for op reveal that it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as Narinder Singh vs. NIAC Ltd. and others (supra) that “Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 39, 43- Damage to vehicle, 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 of 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.” Since, the non registration of the vehicle is fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of the policy, as such no direction can be given to the op to settle and pay claim to the complainants. Moreover, the complainants have not submitted registration certificate before op nor placed on record by the complainants.
11. In these circumstances, the complaint of the complainants does not appear to be maintainable and the same is hereby dismissed being pre-mature. But however, they are at liberty to approach the opposite party after registration of the vehicle and lodge claim afresh if same is within time and is payable as per terms and conditions of the policy. A copy of order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:21.12.2017. Member District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
