This case has arisen out of a complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The fact of the case is that the petitioner purchased the vehicle from O.P.No-1 with financial assistance of Bajaj Finance Ltd & on instruction of O.P.No-1 she submit all documents, thereafter O.P.No-1 issued a tax invoice of Rs.2,43,114.99/- in her favour & she was assured that O.P.No-1 will supply the insurance policy of the vehicle and road tax registration to the petitioner and took Rs.33,228/- & after completion of formalities O.P.No-1 handed over the vehicle to the petitioner and assured the petitioner to give immediate all registration papers, insurance papers and tax papers to the petitioner and being assurance of O.P.No-1 petitioner is plying the vehicle on road without any hesitation.
That on 31.10.2017 petitioner’s son was driving the vehicle and coming from Kurmanpur to Itahar through N.H.34 but suddenly one truck bearing No:WB76/5423 was coming from opposite side in rash and negligent manner dashed petitioner’s vehicle and her son fell down on the road and vehicle was badly damaged and petitioner’s son was taken to Itahar Hospital. After the incident Usman Ali, Attorney Holder informed the mater to Itahar PS & thereafter petitioner informed it to O.P.No-2/Insurance Company and upon receipt of information O.P.No-2 engaged a panel surveyor to assess the actual loss. Petitioner took the vehicle to authorized Service Centre who issued estimate of Rs.81,264/- & she handed over the vehicle to O.P.No-1 for repairing. O.P/Insurance Company after receipt of claim issued a letter dated 24.11.2017 stating that insured vehicle is not registered at the time of accident and said vehicle was being driven without registration at the material time of accident in violation of Section 35 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. The Insurance Company by another letter dated 07.12.2017 asked the petitioner to submit documents which she submitted on 12.12.2017 but no initiative was taken for payment of the claim & for deficiency in service she lodged this complaint with prayer for directing the O.Ps to pay Rs.81,264/- towards damage cost with interest, Rs.50,000/- as compensation for physical, mental pain and professional loss, sufferings and litigation cost of Rs.15,000/-.
O.P.No-1 submits W.V stating that it has not assured the complainant that it would immediately supplied all papers regarding vehicle and never assured that complainant may ride in vehicle on road without any hesitation. Though damage cost was estimated by it on 01.01.2018 but since then the owner of the vehicle has not made any contact with O.P.No-1 till date. The complainant is a purchaser and O.P.No-1 is authorized dealer/seller of the Motor Vehicle that was financed by Bajaj Finance Limited and insured with vehicle Bajaj Allianz G.I Co. Ltd. On the day of purchase complainant requested O.P.No-1 to get registration at Malda District & at that time for Puja Vacation RTO Office was closed & after opening when O.P.No-1 contacted with RTO Official they told to register the vehicle at Raiganj RTO Office being resident of this area and the owner of the vehicle replied that she would voluntarily applying for registration of the vehicle to her District and immediately one temporary registration was arranged for the said vehicle by O.P.No-1. So O.P.No-1 prays for rejection of the complainant’s claim.
O.P.No-2/Insurance Company contested the case by filing written version denying the case of the complainant stating that the complainant purchased a motor cycle with gear, Chassis No:MB2JPJYF8HC242599, Engine No:793827833 from Planet Wheels Pvt Ltd., Malda /O.P.No-1 and hypotheciatetd with Bajaj Finance Ltd, Malda, on 18.10.2017 & was insured with O.P.No-2/Insurance Company under Two Wheeler Package Policy vide Policy No-OG-18-2414-1802-00002951 from 28.10.2017 to 27.10.2018 in the name of owner Masud Rehena, subject to terms and conditions. The complainant had stated in the claim intimation that on 31.10.2017 when her son was riding the motor cycle it was dashed by truck & she intimated the Police Authority and lodged F.I.R No:287 dated 07.11.2017. The O.P.No-2 was intimated by the complainant on 10.11.2017 through call centre and claimed compensation for the damage occurred and on receipt of intimation O.P.No-2 asked the complainant to submit all necessary documents and also appointed the investigator to investigate the claim. It was found that the damaged vehicle was purchased on 18.10.2017 and temporary tax was paid on 10.11.2017 for registration of the said vehicle however the vehicle met with an accident on 31.10.2017, which is before the date on which tax was paid. It was observed from the documents sent by the complainant to O.P.No-2 that the insured vehicle is not registered at the time of accident i.e on 31.10.2017. O.P.No-2 by letter dated 24.11.2017 & 07.12.2017 had asked the complainant to submit clarification with respect to non-registration of vehicle but non-receipt of any clarification from the complainant O.P.No-2 repudiated the claim. It was further found that the complainant was applied for registration of said vehicle on 10.11.2017 i.e after the accident. The said vehicle was being driven without registration at the material time of accident which is violation of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 Section 39 which forms part of the Insurance Contract. So, O.P.No-2 is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant of the damage of said insured vehicle and there was no deficiency in service on it’s part and O.P.no-2 also prays for dismissal of the claim.
P o i n t s f o r d e c i s i o n
- Whether there was any deficiency of service on the part of O.Ps which gives rise cause of action of this complaint?
- Is the petitioner entitled to get relief(s) as prayed for?
D e c i s i o n s w i t h r e a s o n
Admittedly, the petitioner/Masud Rehena W/o-Hamidur Rahaman resident of Vill:Puratan Itahar, P.O & P.S-Itahar, Dist-Uttar Dinajpur, purchased a BAJAJ KTM DUKE 390 motor cycle with gear, Chassis No:MB2JPJYF8HC242599 & Engine No:793827833 from Planet Wheels Pvt. Ltd, Gabgachi N.H.34, Kamlabari, Malda with the financial assistance of Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd, Malda.
Tax invoice dated 18.10.2017 issued by Planet Wheels Pvt. Ltd shows Ex-showroom price Rs.189933.59 plus GST 28% i.e CGST Rs.26590.70, SGST Rs.26590.70 = Rs.243114.99 plus insurance Rs.5001.00 & road tax registration Rs.28227.00, in total Rs.276342.99 say Rs.276343.00.
Statement of Account produced by O.P.No-1 shows loan agreement No:L2WMAL05390321, customer name Masud Rehena, amount financed Rs.206000.00, Disbursed on 27-Oct-2017, payable by 24 EMIs, from 03-DEC-2017 to 03-NOV-2019.
Though not averred but complainant pressed money receipt No:230 dated 27.10.2017 which shows that O.P.No-1 received Rs.80243/- from the petitioner. The argument of Ld. Advocate for O.P.No-1 is acceptable that O.P.No-1 received Rs.70343.00 (remaining amount as per tax invoice) + approx Rs.10000/-, actually Rs.9900 (for accessories)=Rs.80243/- by issuing money receipt No:230, dated 27.10.2017.
Admittedly, the motor cycle was insured with Bajaj Allianz Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd/O.P.No-2 under Two Wheeler Package Policy vide policy No:OG-18-2414-1802-00002951 for the period from 28.10.2017 to 27.10.2018 midnight in the name of owner Masud Rehena, subject to terms and conditions of the policy.
The petitioner’s case is that O.P.No-1 delivered the vehicle to the petitioner on 18.10.2017 and at the time of delivery of the vehicle O.P.No-1 assured the petitioner to give immediate all Registration papers, Insurance papers & Tax papers to the petitioner and being assurance of O.P.No-1 petitioner is plying the vehicle on road without any hesitation.
O.P.No-1 stated that since loan was sanctioned on 18.10.2017 on that date the motor cycle was handed over to the petitioner by O.P.No-1 but O.P.No-1 denied that it has assure the petitioner that it would immediately supply all papers of Insurance Policy, Road Tax Registration regarding the vehicle and O.P.No-1 never assured the petitioner that she may ride in vehicle on road without any hesitation.
Petitioner’s case is that her son/Juyel Rana Chowdhury was driving the motor cycle on 31.10.2017 & coming from Kurmanpur to Itahar through N.H.34 but one truck bearing No:WB76/5423 which was coming towards opposite direction dashed the motor cycle and Juyel fell down on the road and vehicle was badly damaged. The petitioner had stated in the claim intimation that on 31.10.2017 when her son was riding the motor cycle it was dashed by a truck.
It appears that her debor/brother-in-law & Attorney Holder/Osman Ali intimated the Police Authority and lodged an F.I.R Ref:Itahar PS Case No:284/17 dated 07.11.2017. The O.P.No-2/Insurance Company was intimated by the petitioner on 10.11.2017 through Call Centre and claimed compensation for the damage occurred & O.P.No-2 on receipt of intimation had asked the petitioner to submit all necessary documents and also appointed Surveyor/Investigator to investigate the claim who surveyed the spot & damaged vehicle to asses actual loss caused by said accident.
Further it appears that the petitioner wrote a letter dated 18.11.2017 to the Manager, Bajaj Allianz Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd, Malda Branch enclosing xerox copies of i. Insurance Policy, ii. F.I.R iii. Intimation, mentioning Chassis Number & Engine Number (Registration number not mentioned).
It also appears that by letter dated 24.11.2017 O.P.No-2 informed the petitioner that “so far we have received few documents & upon inspection/survey of the said vehicle we would like to point few observations which are given below:-
- Insured vehicle is not registered at the time of accident (date of loss-31.10.2017) but as per submitted document we have observed that the temporary tax was paid on 10.11.2017 valid up to 09.12.2017. The vehicle purchased on 18.10.2017 but applied for registration on 10.11.2017.
- That the said vehicle was been driven without registration at the material time of accident this is violation of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, Section 39 which forms part of the insurance contract.
Hence, in view of the above kindly do submit your clarification with documentary evidence within 07 days of receipt of the letter else we shall presume that you have no more interest on the said claim.”
Further it appears that petitioner wrote letter dated 12.12.2017 to the Divisional Manager, Bajaj Allianz Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd, G.B.Plaza, Airport Road, Yerawada, Pune 411006, informing that she has purchased said vehicle (mentioning Registration No:-WB66TB/2479) on 18.10.2017 from O.P.No-1 and on that date she has paid Rs.80,243/- for the vehicle along with road tax and for the registration of the vehicle, though the money receipt No:230 dated 27.10.2017 was given to her.
Again we reiterate that Tax invoice was issued on 18.10.2017 & vehicle was handed over to the petitioner on 18.10.2017 on good faith without any valid papers/documents, as the loan was sanctioned, but loan of Rs.206000.00 was disbursed to O.P.No-1 on 27.10.2017 and remaining amount Rs.70343/- + Rs.9900/- for accessories, in total Rs.80243/- was paid by the petitioner to O.P.No-1 on 27.10.2017 and O.P.No-1 issued said money receipt No:-230 dated 27.10.2017. Consequently the claim of the petitioner regarding payment of Rs.80243/- on 18.10.2017 & issuance of money receipt No:-230 dated 27.10.2017 by O.P.No-1 stands false.
O.P.No-2’s claim is it appears that the motor cycle was purchased on 18.10.2017 but temporary tax was paid on 10.11.2017 for the said insured vehicle and petitioner had applied for the registration of the vehicle on 10.11.2017 i.e both were after the accident dated 31.10.2017.
O.P.No-1 submits Registered Vehicle Details of vehicle being Registration No:-WB60Q/9637 in name of owner Masud Rehena, registration type-temporary registered vehicle, purchase/delivery date 10-NOV-2017, registration date 08-FEB-2018.
The claim of O.P.No-2 stands correct that temporary tax payment & application for registration of the vehicle by the petitioner were done on 10-NOV-2017, after the alleged accident dated 31.10.2017. Consequently, we find that Juyel Rana Chowdhury S/o-Masud Rehena/petitioner drove the motor cycle without any valid papers/documents and did accident on 31.10.2017, and he or his mother/owner of vehicle is solely responsible.
By another letter dated 07.12.2017 O.P.No-2 informed the petitioner referring earlier letter dated 24.11.2017 that “we have neither received any response with documentary evidence nor any reply in support of the above claim till date. In view of the above kindly do respond within 07 days else shall presume that you have no more interest in claiming aforesaid vehicle & repudiate the same.”
Ld. Advocate for the petitioner referred citation RE:-United India Insurance Co. Ltd & Ors Vs Sushil Kumar Godara of NCDRC, New Delhi reported in [2021] CJ 171 (N.C.) & pointed out that though plying a vehicle on road without registration is a violation of provisions of Motor Vehicle’s Act, Competent Authority to take action against a non-registered vehicle is Police and other Govt. Authorities-Insurance Company after accepting premium, cannot escape from its liability and repudiate claim on this technical ground.
This citation is distinguishable as in that case the vehicle had been stolen when the vehicle was registered temporarily and in this case there was/is neither temporary registration nor tax paid at the time of accident.
Ld. Advocate for the Insurance Company referred a citation of N.C.D.R.C, New Delhi in Re:Ramesh Patel Vs Manager, Bajaj Allianz GIC Ltd which quoted a judgment delivered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Narinder Singh Vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors, in which it was held that non-registration of the vehicle, temporary or permanent, amounted to a fundamental breach of the terms & conditions of the policy and hence, the insurer was not liable to pay the claim.
He referred another citation of N.C.D.R.C, New Delhi in Re:Saleena Rani Vs United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr which discussed Section 39. Necessity for Registration: and Section 43. Temporary Registration: of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 & held that if the vehicle is not registered with competent authority and the time limit of temporary number has expired, the insurance company will not be liable for theft of the vehicle. He too submits judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Re: Narinder Singh Vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors.
Under above facts and discussion, we are of the opinion that the motor cycle having been driven without registration at the material time of accident in violation of provision of Section 39 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, so there was no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.No-2/insurer in repudiating the claim of the petitioner & consequently the petitioner is not entitled to any relief as prayed for.
In the result the claim fails. Hence, it is,
O R D E R E D
that the C.C No-24/2019 be and the same is dismissed on contest against O.Ps but without any cost.
Let a copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.
