Haryana

StateCommission

A/811/2015

PRADEEP - Complainant(s)

Versus

ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. - Opp.Party(s)

T.S.DHULL

25 Nov 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  : 811 of 2015

Date of Institution: 24.09.2015

Date of Decision : 25.11.2016

 

Pardeep s/o Sh. Mahender Singh, Resident of Village Kithana, Distt. Kaithal (Haryana)

                                       Appellant-Complainant

 Versus

 

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (A Govt. of India undertaking) through its Branch Manager, Branch Office Nehru Park, Circular Road, Bhiwani.

                                     

                                      Respondent- Opposite Party

 

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Argued by:          Sh. Tejpal Singh Dhull, Advocate for the appellant.

Sh. J.P. Nahar, Advocate for the respondent.

                                                  

O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

          Pardeep-complainant is in appeal against the order dated 25.05.2015 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhiwani (in short, ‘District Forum’) vide which the complaint was dismissed.

2.      Complainant filed complaint submitting that he purchased a Santro Car bearing temporary registration No.HR-99-KL-1385 on 04.10.2011 from Raghu Hyundai authorised dealer of Hyundai Motors.  It was insured with Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.-opposite party from 04.10.2011 to 03.10.2012.  On 11.11.2011 it was hit by some unknown vehicle.  The Insurance Company was informed.  He got repaired car from Raghu Hyundai. The complainant paid Rs.62,891/- to Raghu Hyundai.  The claim was lodged but not paid by the opposite party. Hence the complaint.  

3.      Opposite party contested the complaint stating that complainant had purchased vehicle on 04.10.2011 and the temporary registration was valid upto 03.11.2011.  It was not got permanently registered till the date of accident i.e. 11.11.2011 and that it was permanently registered on 06.04.2012, therefore, it being violation of the policy, opposite party was not liable to indemnify the complainant. Opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.      The short question is as to whether complainant is entitled for the loss occurred to the vehicle after the expiry of temporary registration number.

5.      It is not disputed that the complainant purchased the vehicle on 04.10.2011.  Perusal of the temporary registration certificate (Exhibit R-3) shows that date of issue is 04.10.2011 and valid upto 03.11.2011.  It is also not disputed that the accident took place on 11.11.2011.  The permanent Registration No. was done on 06.04.2012 (Annexure-1). In a similarly situated case Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Narinder Singh Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited and others vide Revision Petition No. 4651 of 2012 decided on 12.04.2013 held as under:-

“However, it is also clear from the facts on record that the temporary registration of the vehicle done by the Registration Authority of UT, Chandigarh had expired on 11.01.2006.  At the time of accident on 02.02.2006, the vehicle was being driven without registration, which is prohibited under Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and is also an offence under Section 192 of the said Act.  The State Commission has rightly quoted the judgments given by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Kaushalendra Kumar Mishra Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. as report in II (2012) CPJ 189 (NC), saying that the damaged vehicle, although insured, is not entitled to claim indemnification under the insurance policy.”

 

6.      The case in hand is fully covered by the authoritative pronouncement referred to above. Thus, the District Forum has rightly dismissed the complaint. No interference is called for in the impugned order. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

 

Announced 25.11.2016 DK

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President