Delhi

StateCommission

A/401/2017

HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAJENDER TANEJA & ANR - Opp.Party(s)

AVA LAW ASSOCIATES

30 Oct 2018

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

(Constituted under section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

 

Date of Hearing: 30.10.2018

                                                                                                              

                                                                   Date of decision:15.11.2018

 

 

First Appeal No. 401/2017

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF:

 

HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Through its Authorised Person,

Unit No. 502, 504 and 506, 5^th floor

Mahtta Tower, B-1 Block,

Community Centre,

Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058

 

Also at:-

5^th Floor, Tower-1,

Stellar IT Park, C-25,

Sector 62, Noida-201301                                                ….Complainant                       

VERSUS

 

Mr. Rajender Taneja

S/o Sh. B.S. Taneja

R/o F-19 Kirti Nagar,

New Delhi-110015                                                         ….Respondent-1

 

Sincere Marketing Services Pvt. Ltd.,

E-5, Masij Moth, G.K. III,

New Delhi-110048                                                         ….Respondent-2

 

 

HON’BLE  SH. O.P. GUPTA, MEMBER(JUDICIAL)

HON’BLE  SH. ANIL SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER

 

 1.   Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?            Yes     

 2.   To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                   Yes

 

Present:       Sh. Rohit Aggarwal, Counsel for the Appellant

                   Sh. Rajat Sharma, Counsel for the Respondent

 

PER:           ANIL SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER

JUDGEMENT

1.           Aggrieved by the decision of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (West) dated 07.06.2017 in CC-86/15 in the matter of Mr. Rajender Taneja versus HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Pvt. Ltd., directing the insurer to pay to the insured within 30 days Rs. 11,63,818/-, the insured value of the vehicle and Rs. 34,408/- the amount towards the insurance premium with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the present complaint till actual realization and Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation on account of mental physical and financial agony suffered by the complainant/respondent, the HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Pvt. Ltd., for short appellant, has preferred an appeal before this Commission under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, the Act, against among others Sh. Rajender Taneja resident of New Delhi, hereinafter referred to as respondents, assailing the said orders.
2.           Facts of the case necessary for the disposal of the appeal are these.
3.           The complainant had purchased a truck vide sale certificate dated 03.03.2014, bearing Chasis Number MC233HRCOEAO89712 and Engine No: E483CDDM632042 manufactured by Eicher, VE Commercial Vehicles Ltd. for sale consideration of Rs. 12,25,072/-. The said vehicle was insured with the appellant for a period of one year from 03.03.2014 to 02.03.2015 on the total premium of Rs. 34,408/-. The said vehicle was found to be missing. The police complaint was filed. The police authorities after investigating the matter filed the untraced report which report was duly accepted by the ld. Metropolitan Magistrate.
4.           As a consequence thereof the complainant/respondent had filed the claim before the insurer, which claim was repudiated on the ground that the vehicle was not registered as required under Section 39 of the Motor Vehicle Act. The said repudiation done by the insurer was assailed before the District Forum. The said forum allowed the claim with a direction to the insurer to pay to the insured, the insured value as also the premium paid. The said decision has been agitated before us in appeal on the ground that the ld. Consumer Forum has failed to see that the complainant in his FIR has fabricated the trade number of the trade certificate viz. DL/3TC/SL/75 as temporary registration number,thus, trying to claim the amount through unfair means. It is submitted that number DL/3TC/SL/75 in the vehicle is the Trade Certificate number and is allotted only for the use of the Dealer for limited purpose. A dealer cannot deliver unregistered vehicles to the customers. The dealer gets the vehicle registered in the name of customer first then hand over the vehicle to the customer. If unregistered vehicle is found plying on the road the owner of the vehicle is be liable to be prosecuted under MV Act. A trade certificate is issued to the dealers by the Transport Department to drive the unregistered vehicles upto the zonal office for registration purposes only. After allocation of registration numbers, fee receipt is given to the owner of the vehicle on the same day and above documents are kept by the zonal office. The registration fee receipt can be retained as proof of having made an application for registration.  
5.           Further the District Forum has not appreciated that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that the vehicle without registration amounts to fundamental violation of the policy terms and condition and as such claim is not payable. The ld. Forum did not appreciate the fact that at the time of theft the vehicle was not registered at all.
6.           Finally awarding of the compensation to the extent of Rs. 1,00,000/- was not reasonable.
7.           The respondents were noticed and in response thereto the reply has been filed resisting the appeal on the ground that the order impugned suffers from no infirmity. It is a very well reasoned order. Secondly the reliance of the insurer on Section 39 of Motor Vehicle Act is misplaced and accordingly the District Forum has rightly assessed the claim. Finally the respondent strongly submits that the investigation report of the Suraksha Enterprises appointed by the respondent itself has mentioned that the vehicle was having temporary registration number bearing no. DL3TC5275, at the time of theft and hence the ground taken by the insurer to repudiate the claim this effect is misplaced.
8.           The matter was listed before us for final hearing on 30.10.2018 when the counsel from both sides appeared and advanced their arguments based on the pleadings.
9.           Short question for examination is whether the repudiation of the claim preferred by the complainant/respondent consequent upon the loss of the truck was just and proper or unjustified and improper as held by the ld. District Forum. As narrated the repudiation of the claim was on the ground that the vehicle was brought on the road without the registration an act in violation of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicle Act. The said provision of the Act posits as under:

 

39. Necessity for registration. No person shall drive any motor vehicles 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 and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner. Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a motor vehicle in possession of a dealer subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government.

 

10. On a plain reading of the provision of the Act it is more than obvious that the owners of the vehicle is under an obligation not to cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless it is registered. It is therefore incumbent on the dealers to hand over the vehicle only after registration is done. Till the vehicle is handed over the dealer remains the owner with the trade certificate. The dealer has handed over the vehicle surely after the registration, may be with temporary number. Besides from the report of the investigator it is apparent that a temporary registration was allotted. (Annexure 9). If that be the case the only defence taken by the insurer to repudiate the claim falls to the ground. No other submission has been advanced by the insurer in addition to this.
11.  Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case keeping and in view the legal position as discussed, we are of the considered view that there exists no infirmity in the order impugned here and accordingly dismissing the appeal we uphold the orders passed by the District Forum, directing the insurer to make the payment. This be done  within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant would be entitled to initiate the proceedings against the insurer under Section 25 and 27 of the consumer Protection Act 1986.
12. Ordered accordingly.
13. A copy of this order be forwarded to the parties to the case free of cost as is statutorily required. A copy of this order be forwarded to the District Forum for information.
14. File be consigned to records.

 

(ANIL SRIVASTAVA)                                                                                            (O.P.GUPTA)

              MEMBER                                                                                       MEMBER (JUDICIAL)