KUNDAN KUMAR KUMAI

This is an appeal under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, preferred against the order dated12/12/2022 passed by the Ld. DCDRC, Raiganj, Uttar Dinajpur in, CC/24/2019.

The appellant’s case in brief is that, the appellant/ complainant had purchased two-wheeler from the respondent no. 1/ OP no. 1, on 18/10/2017 for Rs. 2,43,114.99/- (Two lakh forty three thousands one hundred fourteen rupees and ninety nine paisa) only and against payment of Rs. 33,228/- (thirty-three thousand two hundred twenty-eight) only, the Insurance Policy and the road tax registration had been assured on 31/10/2017 when the some of the appellant/complainant was driving the vehicle from Kurmanpur to Itahar on national high way met with an accident with one truck bearing no. WB 765423 coming from the opposite side. The vehicle was badly damaged and the son of the appellant/complainant had been taken to the hospital. The power of attorney holder Usman Ali had lodged a complaint before the Itahar Ps and the appellant/complainant had informed the respondent Insurance Company. On receipt of the complaint a panel surveyor had been engage to assess the actual loss. The appellant/complainant had taken the vehicle to authorized service center who estimated the cost at Rs. 81,264/- (eighty-one thousand two hundred sixty-four) only and the vehicle had been handed over for repairs. The respondent Insurance Company by a later dated 24/11/2017 repudiated the claim on the ground, that the vehicle had been driven without registration in violation of the Section 39 of the Moto Vehicle Act 1988. By another later dated 07/12/2017, the appellant/complainant was asked to submit documents by the respondent Insurance Company which he did on 12/12/2017, but no payment was received. Finding no alternative, he lodged this complain before the Ld. DCDRC, Raiganj, Uttar Dinajpur, with necessary prayers.

The respondent no. 1/OP no. 1 appear to contest the claim by filing written version, wherein the case of the appellant/complainant was denied save and except the sale of the vehicle to the appellant/complainant. It was further mentioned, that the vehicle registration would be applied by the appellant/complainant and only one temporary registration for the vehicle had been arranged.

The respondent Insurance Company also appear to contest the claim by filing written version wherein, the insurance of the vehicle was admitted by policy no- OG-18-2414-1802-00002951 with validity from 28/10/2017 to 27/10/2018, subject to terms and conditions. It was further stated, that the appellant/complainant had intimated the accident of 31/10/2017 to the police authority vide FIR No. 287 dated 07/11/2017, and the respondent Insurance Company was also intimated on 10/11/2017 through call center and claimed for compensation. The Respondent Insurance Company asked the appellant/ complainant to submit documents and also appointed investigator to investigate the claim. It was found, that the vehicle had been purchased on 18/10/2017 and was without registration and for which reason, the claim had been repudiated. In this regard a clarification had been sought vide latest dated 24/11/2017 and 07/12/2017 with respect to non- registration of the vehicle, but on failure by the appellant/complainant, the claim had been repudiated and it was prayed, that the appeal be dismissed.

After going through the materials and evidence of record, the Ld. DCDRC, Raiganj, Uttar Dinajpur, passed the impugned order dismissing the complaint.

Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellant preferred this appeal on the ground, that the Ld. DCDRC, Raiganj, Uttar Dinajpur, had erred in law and facts, while passing the impugned order.

Decision With reasons

Ld. Advocate for the appellant at the time of final hearing submitted, that the vehicle in question was under temporary registration from 18/10/2017 and at the time of accident also therefore, the impugned order was erroneous. It was further argued that, the appeal be allowed and the prayers made  in the complaint be also granted.

Ld. Advocate for the respondent no. 1/ OP No. 1 had submitted, that temporary registration had been arranged at the time of purchased as the appellant/ complainant preferred to apply for registration in her own district.

Ld. Advocate for the Respondent Insurance Company on the other hand had submitted, that vehicle had been without registration at the time of accident and therefore violated the provision of the Section 39 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988. He had relied in the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 5887 of 2021 between United India Insurance Company Ltd. and Sushil Kumar Godara and in Narinder Singh Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd.

The fact of sale and the subsequent accident of the vehicle is not disputed. The only point of the dispute is with regard with the registration or non-registration of the vehicle at the time of accident. In this regard the respondent no. 1/ OP no. 1 had emphatically stated that as the appellant/complainant wanted to file for registration of the vehicle in their district a temporary registration had been arranged for, both in the written version, as well as the WNA. The tax in voice also reflects collection of road tax registration amounting to Rs. 28,227/- (twenty-eight thousand two hundred twenty-seven) only. Moreover, it is not expected that dealer of such vehicles would permit the vehicles to leave the show-room without any sought of registration. But temporary registration is governed by the provisions of Section 43 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, wherein it is clearly mentioned, that’s such temporary registration would be valid for 30 days. Under the circumstance, they remain no doubts that the vehicle in question was under temporary registration for 30 days starting from 18/10/2017. In other words, it would mean, that the vehicle was under temporary registration, at the time of accident. Therefore, the respondent Insurance Company had no authority to repudiate the claim on that ground. In this regard the judgements cited above also do not come to the rescue of the respondent insurance Company on the ground that the above rulings were passed in case of violation of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988, whereas in the instant case, there was no such violation of the provisions of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988, as the vehicle in question was under valid temporary registration provided under Section 43 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988.   As the policy was valid at the time of accident, the respondent insurance company is duty bound to compensate the appellant/complainant with Rs. 81,264/- (eighty-one thousand two hundred sixty-four) only, with interest @6% from the date of claim, as expenses to was damaged to the vehicle and Rs. 25,000/-(twenty five thousand) only towards compensation for mental pain and agony and Rs. 10,000/-(ten thousand) only towards litigation costs, totaling to Rs. 1,16,264/- (one lakh sixteen thousand two hundred sixty-four) only.

As a result, the instant appeal succeeds.

                                                                          It is therefore

                                                                            Ordered

That the instant appeal be and the same is allowed on contest but without costs.

The impugned order is hereby set aside.

The respondent insurance company is hereby directed to comply with the directions passed in the body of the judgment within 45 days on receipt of the copy of the order.

Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of costs.

Copy of the order be sent to the Ld. DCDRF, Raiganj, Uttar Dinajpur for necessary information.