Jharkhand

Bokaro

CC/17/133

Arindam Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Prop Sumangal Motars - Opp.Party(s)

31 May 2022

ORDER

District Consumer Commission, Bokaro.

Case No. 133/2017

  Date of Filing-14-09-2017

 Date of Order-31-05-2022

Arindam Kumar S/o- Sadanand Dubey

R/o  Plot No. 983, Bari  Co-Operative Colony, 

District- Bokaro.

                                      Vr.

1. Prop. Sumangal Motars, Bye Pass road Chas,

    District- Bokaro

 2. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Plot No. M/5,  City Center, Sector-4, Bokaro Steel City, District- Bokaro

Present:-

          Shri Jai Prakash Narayan Pandey, President

            Smt. Baby Kumari, Member

                                                -Order-

1.   Complainant has filed this case with prayer for direction to O.Ps. to make payment to him of Rs. 48000/- as insured amount and to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and Rs. 96000/- on account of loss of job.
2.   Complainant’s case in brief is that he purchased TVS Motor Cycle from  O.P. No.1 Sumangal Motors, Bye Pass Road, Chas  which was insured with O.P. No.2 (Insurance Co.) with insurance policy valid from 18.12.2015 to 17.12.2016. Further case is that at the time of purchase of the vehicle complainant paid Rs. 56,449/- as price of the vehicle, registration and insurance cost etc.  to the O.P. No.1 who provided insurance policy No. 3005/A1-10263369/00/000. Further case is that on 15.04.2016 while complainant was going to Kasmar some unsocial elements set the vehicle on fire causing complete damage, hence he applied for compensation by O.P. No.2 which was refused on the ground that vehicle was not registered on the day of occurrence thereafter, he obtained temporary registration certificate on 26.04.2016 and provided it to the insurance co. but his claim was refused hence case has been filed.
3.   Inspite of due service of notice O.P. No.1 has not appeared hence case has been proceeded against him Ex-parte.
4.    O.P. No.2 appeared and admitted the fact related to purchase of the vehicle, its insurance with this O.P. but has denied the claim on the ground that on the relevant date vehicle was being plied without registration and temporary registration has been applied after the occurrence dt. 15.04.2016. Again additional W.S. has been filed repeating the same facts of W.S. however, some additional facts have been mentioned that one investigator/Surveyor namely Ajay Kishore Lal was deputed by the Insurance Co. who has reported that the insured vehicle was not registered on the date of loss i.e. on 15.04.2016 whereas tax applied after loss i.e. on 02.05.2016 hence due to noncompliance of the provision of section 39 or 43 of the M.V. Act. claim has been repudiated. Hence this O.P. is not liable to pay any amount.
5.    Now, only point for consideration is whether complainant is entitled to get any compensation from O.Ps. and if it is yes then what will be the compensation amount?
6.   On perusal of the materials available on record it is admitted fact that vehicle concerned was insured with ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. which was valid from 18.12.2015 to 17.12.2016 for IDV Rs. 48,022/-. Another admitted fact is that vehicle was completely damaged due to act of unsocial elements who set fire on the vehicle. Another admitted fact is that O.P. No.2 was informed about the incidence of fire of the vehicle , thereafter said O.P. deputed surveyor who conducted survey and submitted his report.
7.   Therefore, it is clear from the facts of the case that for issuance of insurance policy O.P. No.2 has not waited for registration of the vehicle nor the condition related to registration of the vehicle was made mandatory for issuance of insurance certificate. Complainant has produced photo copy of tax retail invoice dt. 15.12.2015 issued by O.P. No.1 which shows that apart from price of the vehicle with VAT etc.  he has also paid Rs. 5900/- to the O.P. No.1 as RTO, REG, INSURACE & TEMP REGISTRATION charge along with VAT etc. On receipt of the payment,  the O.P. No.1 has provided Insurance Certificate to the complainant. Therefore, it is apparent that there is no latches on the part of the complainant in obtaining insurance certificate or in payment of registration cost etc. Hence for latches caused by O.P. No.1 complainant will never suffer. Hence we are of the opinion that there is deficiency in service by O.Ps. and complainant is entitled to get relief to the some extent because there is no evidence or documents regarding loss of job of the complainant hence he is not entitled to get any compensation on that very score.  Accordingly this point is being decided in favour of the complainant.
8.    Therefore, the claim of the complainant is being allowed in the following manner:-

O.P. No.2 (Insurance Co.) is directed to pay Rs. 48,000/- to the complainant within 60 days from today failing which he will be entitled to get interest on that very amount @ 10% per annum from 14.09.2017 i.e. (the date on which complaint was filed). O.P. No.2 is further directed to pay Rs. 2000/- as litigation cost. Since complainant was negligent in obtaining registration certificate through O.P.No.1 hence there shall be no order as to payment of cost. However, it is made clear that both the O.Ps. are deficient in service hence O.P.No.2 will have liberty to realize all above amount i.e. Rs. 50,000/- from O.P.No.1.