Punjab

Sangrur

CC/15/2015

Hardip Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Park Hyundai - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Manit Garg

06 Jul 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.    15

                                                Instituted on:      08.01.2015

                                                Decided on:       06.07.2015

 

Hardip Kaur W/o Shri Raghvir Singh, resident of H.NO.216, New Basti, Mehas Gate, Nabha, Tehsil Nabha, District Patiala.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.             Park Hyundai, through its Manager, Village Kamo Majra Kalan, After IOC Depot, Jind Road, Sangrur.

2.             Bharti AXA General Insurance Company Limited, First Floor, Ferns Icon, Survey No.28, Doddenekundi, Off Outer Ring Road, Bengaluru, Karnataka-560037.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

 

For the complainant    :       Shri Manit Garg, Adv.

For OP No.1.             :       Shri Rahul Sharma, Adv.

For OP No.2.             :       Shri GS Shergill, Adv.

 

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

               

 

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Smt. Hardip Kaur, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that  the complainant purchased from OP number 1 a Verna Car having model number Verna SX(O) IV bearing chassis number MALCU41VLEM163417, engine number D4FBDV371487  on 9.5.2014 for a sum of Rs.10,68,008/- and further an amount of Rs.35,262/- was paid to OP number 1 as insurance policy, Rs.730/- as accessories and Rs.56,074/- on account of registration charges of the vehicle. It is further stated that the complainant also got financed the vehicle in question from the Axis Bank. It is further stated that the OP number 1 even issued temporary registration number.  It is further stated that the OP number 1 has also deposited the registration charges of the car with the registering authority. 

 

2.             Further case of the complainant is that unfortunately, the car in question met with an accident on 17.6.2014 at Patiala, information of which was given to OP number 1, but the complainant received a letter from OP number 2 that the term of the temporary registration number was only upto 8.6.2014 and at the time of accident of the car in question, it was not under valid registration as the registration amount was only deposited on 18.6.2014.  It is further stated that thereafter the complainant asked OP number 1 regarding the registration details and after receiving the details, she came to know that the OP number 1 deposited the registration fee only on 18.6.2014. It is stated further that since the complainant had paid all the charges i.e. cost of vehicle, insurance charges, registration charges etc, she is entitled to get the vehicle repaired from the OPs.  It is further stated that the complainant also got served a legal notice upon the OPs, but nothing happened. It is also averred in the complaint that the car is still lying abandoned in the premises of the OP number 1 in an opened condition and the OP number 1 did not repair the car. It is also averred that the complainant earlier filed a complaint before the District Forum Patiala, which was withdrawn with a permission to file fresh one before this Forum. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to repair the car in question and further prayed for payment of compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- for mental tension agony and harassment.

 

3.             In reply filed by OP number 1, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the car in question is insured with the OP number 2 and the same was insured at the time of its purchase on 9.5.2014 and valid upto 8.5.2015.  The car in question was insured even without any registration number, as such, OP number 2 is liable to pay the claim amount. It is stated further that the complainant is plying the car without RC at the time of alleged accident and was himself negligent by not preparing the RC in question.  On merits, it is stated that the payment of premium received from the complainant has been paid to OP number 2 and only after that the insurance policy was issued.  It is stated further that the registration amount was deposited by the OP number 1 on 18.6.2014 when the complainant instructed for getting the registration certificate.  Earlier the complainant told the OP number 1 that she wants VIP number, but the series were closed and she told the OP that she will get the registration number after new series is opened.  It is stated that the delay, if any is on the part of the complainant herself. It is stated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP number 1.

 

4.             In reply filed by OP number 2, preliminary objections are taken up on the ground that the present complaint is not maintainable as the vehicle was not registered with the registering authority at the time of alleged occurrence and that there is a violation of provision of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicle Act. It is stated further that the non registration of the vehicle is the clear cut violation of the motor vehicle act and the insured is not entitled to get any relief.  That the complaint is false, frivolous, vague and vexatious in nature and that the complainant has filed the captioned complaint and that the complainant has not got no locus standi and cause of action to file the present complaint.  On merits, it is admitted that the vehicle in question was insured for the period from 9.5.2014 to 8.5.2015.  It is denied by the OP that the vehicle in question met with an accident on 17.6.2014, however, it is admitted that the vehicle met with an accident on 12.6.2014.  It is stated that after getting the information regarding the loss caused to the vehicle, the Ops allotted claim number C0591875 and appointed Shri Sanjeev Kumar Verma, surveyor and loss assessor for assessing the loss caused to the vehicle of complainant, who conducted the spot survey as well as final survey at the workshop of OP number 1 and assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.7,71,471/- as per the terms and conditions of the policy. It is stated further that the vehicle was not registered at the time of accident.  The complainant was also provided the registration details of the vehicle and on perusal of the same, it was found that the tax was deposited on 18.6.2014 after six days of the occurrence, as the temporary registration certificate of the vehicle was valid from 9.5.2014 to 8.6.2014.  Thereafter the complainant was asked to provide the comments vide letters dated 9.7.2014 and 19.8.2014 abut the discrepancies as well as medical treatment documents of Mr. Tavinderjit Singh, who was driving the vehicle, but the complainant did not supply the same as such the claim was rightly repudiated vide letter dated 25.2.2015 as per the terms and conditions of the policy.  Any deficiency in service on the part of the OP has been denied.

 

5.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 copy of proforma invoice, Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-3 copies of payment receipts, Ex.C-4 copy of retail invoice, Ex.C-5 copy of bank acknowledgement form, Ex.C-6 copy of payment receipt, Ex.C-7 copy of temporary registration, Ex.C-8 copy of insurance policy, Ex.C-9 to Ex.C-10 copies of letters, Ex.C-11 copy of registration details, Ex.C-12 copy of legal notice, Ex.C-13 to Ex.C-14 copies of postal receipts, Ex.C-15 affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 1 has produced Ex.OP1/1affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 2 has produced Ex.Op2/1 affidavit, Ex.OP2/2 copy of letter, Ex.Op2/3 copy of receipt, Ex.OP2/4 to Ex.OP2/6 copies of letters, Ex.OP2/7 copy of survey report, Ex.OP2/8 copy of terms and conditions and closed evidence.

 

6.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties, evidence produced on the file and written submissions and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

7.             It is an admitted fact that the complainant purchased the car in question from the OP number 1 on 9.5.2014 by paying the requisite amount and thereafter the same was got insured from OP number 2 by paying the required amount of premium vide Ex.C-8. It is also an admitted fact that the complainant paid an amount of Rs.56,074/- to OP number 1 towards the registration certificate charges of the vehicle in question at the time of purchasing the new car.  It is further not in dispute that the vehicle in question met with an accident at Patiala on 17.6.2014, of which information was given to the OP number 2 and OP number 2 appointed Shri Sanjeev Kumar Verma, surveyor and loss assessor, who assessed the loss to the vehicle to the tune of Rs.7,71,471/-.   

 

8.             It is worth mentioning here that the present complaint was filed on 8.1.2015, but opposite party number 2 repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 25.2.2015, a copy of which on record is Ex.OP2/6 (after filing of the present complaint) on the ground that section 39 of the motor Vehicle Act requires 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. 

 

9.             After carefully examining the whole of the case file, the question which arises for determination before us is whether the insurance company, OP number 2 is liable to pay the insurance claim or not. 

 

10.            It is an admitted fact on record that the complainant purchased the car in question from OP number 1 on 9.5.2014 and paid an amount of Rs.56,074/- on the same date i.e. 9.5.2014 towards the registration certificate charges, which were to be deposited by OP number 1 with the Registering Authorities for getting prepared the registration certificate.  But, the OP number 1 deposited the amount of Rs.56074/- with the Punjab Motor Vehicle Department only on 18.6.2014 after keeping the same for 47 days with it.  There is no explanation from the side of OP number 1 that why they did not earlier applied for registration of the vehicle in question.  Though the learned counsel for OP number 1 has contended that the same could not be deposited due to the own mistake of the complainant, as the complainant had told that he requires a VIP number, but the series was closed and she told the OP number 1 that she will get the registration number after new series is opened.  But, to support such a plea, the OP number 1 has not produced any cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence on record.  As such, we are unable to accept such a contention of OP number 1 in the circumstances of the case.  Further, we feel that the OP number 1 has miserably failed to establish such a contention that the delay in getting the vehicle in question registered with the registering authorities in time is due to the negligence of the complainant. Moreover, the OP number 1 is negligent in its duty by not getting the vehicle registered and the OP number 1 cannot shift its burden on the complainant and as such we cannot held the complainant liable for the wrongs of the OP number 1.    In view of this, we feel that OP number 1 is negligent in not applying for registration of the vehicle in question in time, despite the fact the OP number 1 took an amount of Rs.56,074/- from the complainant on 9.5.2014 itself at the time of purchasing the car by the complainant. 

       

11.            The learned counsel for the complainant has further contended that the complainant had purchased the car after obtaining the finance from AXIS Bank and she is bearing interest on the same also for which she is liable to be compensated also.  The learned counsel for the complainant has also contended that the insurance company, OP number 2 does not enjoin the powers of traffic police and at all is not competent to reject the claim on such a sole ground that the complainant is not entitled to get the claim as it has no registration certificate of the vehicle in question at the time of accident.  To support his contention, the learned counsel for the complainant has cited Aroma Paints Ltd. and another versus New India Assurance Company Limited and others 2013(3) CPJ (NC) 635, wherein in that case the insured vehicle was not having a registration certificate at the time of accident and the vehicle suffered total loss in the accident.  The insurance company appointed surveyor and after receiving the report, the opposite party insurance company repudiated the claim on the ground that the vehicle in question was not having registration certificate. The complainant filed the complaint, which was allowed by the Forum.  The insurance company went in appeal and the Hon’ble State Commission allowed the appeal.  Thereafter the complainant went in appeal before the Hon’ble National Commission and the Hon’ble National Commission held that the insurance company is not entitled to dismiss the claim under guise of section 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It is mere negligence and inaction on the part of the complainant.  There is no evidence to show that he had an ulterior motive. The negligence on the part of the complainant cannot be equated with men srea and further held that the repudiation of the claim is not justified.  In the present case also,  it is the complainant who had paid the whole amount i.e. Rs.56074/- to OP number 1 for getting the vehicle registered even at the time of purchasing the new car.  As such, it cannot said that the complainant did not get the vehicle registered within a period of one month due to any ulterior motive, more so when she has already paid an amount of Rs.56,074/- to OP number 1 for getting the registration certificate of the vehicle.  

 

12.            Now, coming to the amount of compensation payable by the OP number 2 to the complainant. We have perused the whole reply of complaint filed by OP number 2, wherein it has been clearly mentioned that the surveyor in his final report assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.7,71,471/-, a copy of which on record is Ex.OP2/7.  We feel that ends of justice would be met if the OP number 2 is directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.7,71,471/- in lieu of insurance claim of the car in question.

 

13.            The insurance companies are in the habit to take these type of projections to save themselves from paying the insurance claim. The insurance companies are only interested in earning the premiums and find ways and means to decline claims. The above said view was taken by the Hon’ble Justice Ranjit Singh of Punjab and Haryana High Court in case titled as New India Assurance Company Limited versus Smt. Usha Yadav and others 2008(3) R.C.R. 9 Civil) 111.

 

14.            In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OP number 2 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.7,71,471/- (on account of loss to the vehicle in question) along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 8.1.2015 till realisation. OP number 1 is also directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.50,000/- on account of compensation for causing mental tension, agony and harassment for applying the registration certificate late for 47 days.  Further  Ops are directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.10,000/- on account of litigation expenses. 

 

15.            This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A  copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                July 6, 2015.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                              (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member