Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/423/2014

Abhishek Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Oriental Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sandeep Bhardwaj, Adv.

20 Jan 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	423 of 2014
Date  of  Institution	:	19.08.2014
Date   of   Decision	:	20.01.2016

 

 

 

 

 

Abhishek Gupta son of Sh.B.K.Gupta, R/o House No.3063, SBI Society, Sector 49-D, Chandigarh.

 

             …..Complainant

Versus

 

1]  Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Regd. & Head Office : A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi – 110002 through its Manager/Authorised Representative.

 

2]  Oriental Insurance Company Limited, SCO 109-110-111, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh through its Manager/Authorised Representative.

 

….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN                 PRESIDENT

         SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU       MEMBER

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

 

 

For complainant(s)      :     Sh.Sandeep Bhardwaj, Advocate

 

For Opposite Party(s)   :     Sh.Sukaam Gupta, Advocate

 

 

PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

 

 

          As per the case, the complainant got his Motor Cycle Bajaj Discover bearing Regd. No.PB-65-L-7543 (T), comprehensively insured from OPs vide cover note Ann.C-2 effective from 25.11.2011 to 24.11.2012.  It is averred that the Opposite Parties never supplied terms & conditions of the policy to the complainant.

         Unfortunately, the said motorcycle got stolen on 17.1.2012 from Phase-7, Mohali, which was informed by Davinder Singh, who was using it being a known of the complainant. That the complainant tried to find out the vehicle, but failed, then police was informed immediately and Report No.20, dated 23.1.2012 was registered (Ann.C-3 & C-4).  The OPs were also informed and thereafter claim was lodged.  The letter vide which the OPs sought comment for the delay in intimation of claim (Ann.C-5) was also duly replied vide Ann.C-6.  Further, the complainant also give detailed clarification about plying of the vehicle in question after expiry of temporary RC on 24.12.2011 (Ann.C-7 & C-8). That the complainant also submitted the non-traceable report (Ann.C-9) to the OPs through letter dated 8.8.2012.  However, the OPs after the passage of long period, repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 10.10.2012    (Annexure C-12). Hence, alleging the said repudiation as illegal and deficiency in service, the present complaint has been filed.

 

2]       The OPs have filed joint reply and admitted the insurance of the vehicle in question, receipt of intimation about the theft of insured vehicle, appointment of investigator and repudiation of the claim lodged by the complainant. 

         It is stated that on receiving intimation regarding the theft, immediately Investigator was deputed to investigate the matter, who submitted its independent report (Ann.R1-2/B).  It is also stated that after receipt of investigation report and while processing the claim, it came to light that the day i.e. 17.1.2012 on which the vehicle in question was stolen, it was not having a valid registration certificate, whereas its temporary registration number had expired on 24.12.2011.  Thus, the vehicle was being used by the complainant wholly and completely in violation of mandatory provisions of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, hence the claim was rightly repudiated (Ann.R1-2/C). 

 

3]       Rejoinder has also been filed by the complainant thereby reiterating the assertions as made in the complaint and controverting that of the OPs as made in their written statement.

        

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

 

6]      The complainant being the owner of the insured vehicle, purchased on 25.11.2011 of which the insurance cover was valid from 25.11.2011 to 24.11.2012, being comprehensively insured, the said vehicle was also covered on account of loss of theft.  Unfortunately, on the fateful day of 17.1.2012, the said vehicle got stolen from Phase-7, Mohali, while it was being used by an acquaintance of the complainant. The police authorities were immediately informed and a DDR was got registered for the offence of theft.  The complainant also lodged the claim with the Opposite Party No.2, but is aggrieved of the repudiation of his claim on the ground that the vehicle was being driven without registration certificate and the same was in contravention of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.  The complainant, who claims that his genuine claim has been denied, thus giving cause of action for filing present complaint against the Opposite Parties on account of deficiency in service on their part, seeking the quoted relief. 

 

7]       The Opposite Parties while contesting the claim of the complainant, have pleaded that the complainant’s claim for loss of theft was diligently processed and even an Investigator was appointed, who vide his report dated 5.3.2012 had opined about the alleged happening of theft of the vehicle in question and the company was advised to take necessary actions, subject to terms & conditions of the policy. 

 

8]       The Opposite Parties have claimed that the vehicle in question was being used without registration certificate as the temporary registration certificate issued at the time of sale of the vehicle on 25.11.2011 had expired and fresh registration was not got done by the complainant when the theft of the vehicle after as many as 22 days passed the expiry of temporary registration i.e. 24.12.2011.  Therefore, citing the provisions of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicle Act, the Opposite Parties claimed that the vehicle was being run by the complainant without registration certificate in contravention of law and as such, being in breach of existing law. The terms & conditions of the policy were not adhered to. Thus, holding their repudiation of the claim of the complainant, just and fair have sought the dismissal of the present complaint against them. 

 

9]       We have minutely perused the documents placed on record by the parties and are of the opinion that the complainant, who is a qualified doctor and is running his own clinic in Sector 46, Chandigarh, as is revealed from his communications, with the OPs and also the Investigator, who had investigated the case of theft of the motorcycle in question.  It is admitted on the part of the complainant that the vehicle did not have a valid registration certificate on the date of its theft i.e. 17.1.2012 and furthermore, on being asked about to explain the reasons for non-registration of the vehicle by the Opposite Parties from the complainant, he had mentioned in his letter dated 19.4.2012 that initially M/s Hind Motors, from where he had purchased the vehicle had advised that it would get his vehicle registered with the registering authorities, but after a lapse of month, he himself tried to do the needful, but was turned back by the officials of the Registering Authorities 3/4 times, as they were busy with the Vidhan Sabha Elections duty in the State of Punjab and before the vehicle could be registered, the theft occurred. 

 

10]      Even the counsel for the complainant argued at length on this issue claiming that the things were not in the control of the complainant, as he was being repeatedly turned back by the registering authority, who were busy due to pending Elections in the State of Punjab.  The contents of letter dated 19.4.2012 (Ann.C-8) submitted by the complainant to the Opposite Parties has also mentioned that he was advised by M/s Hind Motors that it would help him in getting vehicle registered with the authorities. But unfortunately, no document has been placed on record by the complainant to prove these two facts, nor M/s Hind Motors, is made a party in the present dispute so that its version on this particular issue could have been solicited to ascertain that the complainant was innocent on this score.  

 

11]      Furthermore, when the complainant says that he had himself tried to visit the Registering Authority, again & again, he has not substantiated that he was ready with all the documents along with fee necessary to be paid for Road Tax, Registration etc. and that the person present in the office of Registering Authority has appended any such note on his registration application directing him to come after few days, compels us to believe that the complainant was himself wasting his time in not getting the vehicle registered in time.  There is no such occasion that the government official would refuse to accept such applications or government fee, even though it may be an Election time, for the reason that there is always a holiday on the day of casting of vote and no government office is ever closed during other such election activities.  We also understand that the issuance of RC may have got delayed, but then the complainant would have been safe after the deposit of government fee and other necessary documents for registration of the vehicle.  For all purposes, the day when the documents are received at the end of Registering Authority, a vehicle is deemed to be validly registered since that day.  In the absence of any documentary evidence to support his pleadings, the complainant failed to lead any cogent and trustworthy evidence in order to prove the reasons for delay in getting the vehicle registered and at the same time, we also do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs in denying the claim of the complainant on the ground of plying of the vehicle in contravention of Section 39 read with Chapter iv of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, being against the terms & conditions of the policy.

 

     

        

12]      In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties and therefore, the complaint deserves dismissal. Accordingly, the complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs.

 

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

 

Announced

20^th January, 2016                                                                

                                                                        Sd/-

 (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

Om                                                                                                                       

 

 

DISTRICT FORUM – II

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.423 OF 2014

PRESENT:   None   Dated the 20th day of January, 2016

O R D E R                        Vide our detailed order of even date, recorded separately, the complaint has been dismissed.                    After compliance, file be consigned to record room.

 

(Priti Malhotra)	(Rajan Dewan)	(Jaswinder Singh Sidhu)
Member	President	Member