Reliance Gernal Insurance Company Limited., Anmol Auto Mobiles V/S Tarlochan S/o Mool Chand - Consumer Court Case

Haryana

Karnal

469/2011

Tarlochan S/o Mool Chand - Complainant(s)

Versus

Reliance Gernal Insurance Company Limited., Anmol Auto Mobiles - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Gagan Sehgal

30 Sep 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

Complaint No. 469 of 2011

Date of instt.: 4.08.2011

Date of decision:31.12.2015

Tarlochan Son of Sh.Mool Chand resident of house no.157, Sector- 6, Urban Estate, Karnal.

……..Complainant.

Vs.

1.Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. a Anil, Dhiru Bhai Ambani Group Regional Office SCO 212-214, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh through its Regional Officer.

2.Anmol Auto Mobiles, -4, HSIDC, Karnal, through its proprietor/Partner.

…..Opposite Parties.

Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer

Protection Act.

Before Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.

Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

Present:- Sh.Gagan Sehgal Advocate for the complainant.

Sh.Pankaj Malhotra Advocate for Opposite Party No.1.

Sh.Sandeep Khokhar Advocate for the Opposite Party No.2.

ORDER:

This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, on the averments that he got insured his car Fiat Linea Emotion – 2009, bearing registration No. HR-05Z-7821, chassis No. MCA1107170900333BQZ and engine No. 16067 with the Opposite Party no.1, vide policy No. 2005782311015336 for the period of 18.3.2009 to 17.3.2010, for the insured value of Rs.774440/- . On 13.02.2010 the car while being driven by one Satish Kumar son of Satpal, met with an accident near Pipli district Kurukshetra and fully damaged. Intimation was given to the Police as well as Opposite Parties. Daily Diary Report No.40 dated 13.2.2010 was got entered in Police Station Sadar, Thaneshar. Satish Kumar wrongly and inadvertently stated that he had purchased the said car, but later on he suffered true statement before the police that the complainant was in fact, the owner of the vehicle and daily diary Report no.39 dated 11.3.2010 was entered on the basis of that statement. It has further been pleaded that Opposite Party No.1 deputed Sh.A.P.Chawla, as surveyor, who submitted his report dated 17.3.2010 and assessed the loss as Rs.1,92,000/-, whereas the car was fully damaged in this accident and the complainant was entitled to get the insured value of the car to the tune of Rs.7,74,440/-. The complainant appointed authorized surveyor namely Sh.Radhey Shyam Garg, who inspected the car and submitted report dated 22.2.2011 assessing the loss as Rs.5,24,440/-. The Malwa Automobiles, authorized workshop of Tata Motors, assessed the repair estimate of damaged car as Rs.5,50,000/- It has further been alleged that complainant approached the Opposite Party No.1 repeatedly for settlement of his claim, but with no result. In this way, there was deficiency in services and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, which caused him mental agony apart from financial loss.

2. Notice of the complaint was given to the Opposite Parties. The Opposite Party no.1 filed written statement controverting the claim of the complainant on various grounds. Objections have been raised that the complainant has got no loucs standi and cause of action to file the present complaint; that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form ; that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint as the policy of insurance was issued from Panipat and the claim was processed at Chandigarh; that complicated questions of law and facts are involved, which cannot lbe decided by this Forum in summary manner; that the complainant is estopped from filing the present complaint by his own acts and conduct ; that complaint is bad for non joinder of the necessary parties and that the complaint is time barred.

On merits, it has been submitted that as per Daily Diary Report no.40 lodged by Satish Rana on 13.2.2010, he was actual owner of the vehicle bearing No. HR-99E-5173. The second Daily Diary Report no.39 dated 11.3.2010 was lodged by Satish Kumar in collusion with local police under legal advice. Satish Kumar and Kanwardeep Singh the son of the complainant admitted before the Investigator M/s Royal Associates that the vehicle was transferred by the insured to Satish, therefore, the complainant was not having insurable interest and his claim was rightly repudiated. It has further been averred that surveyor appointed by the Opposite Party no.1 assessed the loss as Rs.1,92,000/- and the complainant got assessed higher amount from other surveyor, which is not binding upon the Opposite Party No.1. Even otherwise, the amount was not payable in view of the fact that insured was not having insurable interest on the date of accident. The other allegations made in the complaint have not been admitted.

3. The Opposite Party No.2 also put into appearance, but no separate written statement was filed and the written statement already filed by Opposite Party No.1 was adopted. The statement of the learned counsel for Opposite Party No.2 was recorded to that effect on 3.9.2012.

4. In evidence of the complainant, his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C27 have been produced.

5. On the other hand, in evidence of Opposite Parties, affidavit of Sh.Abhilash Chander, Assistant Manager Ex.O1 and documents Ex.O2 to Ex.O18 have been tendered.

6. We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties.

7. There is no dispute between the parties that the car of the complainant was insured with Opposite Party No.1 for the period of 18.3.2009 to 17.3.2010 and the said car met with an accident on 13.2.2010 and was badly damaged. The Opposite Party No.1 appointed surveyor, who assessed the loss as Rs.1,92,000/-. The complainant also appointed authorized surveyor who assessed the loss as Rs.5,24,440/- . Malwa Automobiles Private Limited, the authorized workshop of Tata Motors, assessed the repair estimate as Rs.5,50,000/- However, the claim of the complainant was repudiated by the Opposite Party No.1 on the ground that the complainant had already transferred the vehicle to Satish Kumar, therefore, he was having no insurable interest on the date of accident and as such was not entitled to get any claim.

8. The learned counsel for the Opposite Parties laid emphasis on the contention that Satish Kumar, who was admittedly driving the car at the time of accident got entered Daily Diary Report No.40 in Police Station Sadar, Thaneshar on 13.2.2010 and claimed that he had purchased the car. Satish Kumar and Kanwardeep Singh son of the complainant had also made statements before the investigator Ex.O6 and Ex.O5 respectively that car was already sold by the complainant to Satish Kumar. No doubt, Satish Kumar got entered another Daily Diary Report No.39 dated 11.3.2010 correcting his previous statement by submitting that he got recorded statement due to inadvertence that car was purchased by him, whereas the car was borrowed by him from Tarlochan , but such Daily Diary Report was got entered as an afterthought on legal advice so that the amount could be claimed from the Insurance Company. Therefore, the complainant was not having any insurable interest on the date of accident and as such Insurance Company was not liable to pay any claim to him.

9. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the Opposite Parties cannot be accepted being devoid of force. No documentary evidence has been produced by the Opposite Parties , according to which any document regarding transfer of the vehicle by the complainant to Satish Kumar was executed prior to the date of accident. No vehicle can be transferred orally because for transfer certain documents are required to be executed by the transferred in favour of the transferee, so that the registration is changed in his favour in the registration record. Satish Kumar, who got entered Daily Diary Report no.40 dated 13.2.2010 might be in the state of panic after the accident and in such a situation he could wrongly or inadvertantly state that the vehicle was purchased by him. However, when he came to know about such mistake, he got corrected such mistake by getting entered Daily Diary Report entered bearing no.39 dated 11.3.2010. The statement Ex.O5 allegedly made before the Invesitgator by Kanwardeep Sandhu in Punjabi has not been proved. The Investigator has not come forward to say that the said statement was made before him. No affidavit of Gurjeet Singh, who allgedly recorded the said statement of Kanwardeep Sandhu has been filed to prove that he recorded the said statement and that Kanwardeep put his signatures in his presence after understanding the contents. Therefore, no importance can be attached to such statement of the son of the complainant allegedly recorded during investigation of the case by the Investigator or Gurjeet Singh. Statement of Satish Rana Ex.O6, recorded during invesitgation does not establish in any manner that the said car was purchased by him. Admittedly, he was driving the car at the time of accident. He only stated that his car was hit from behind by Hywa Crane. Therefore, the afore discussed evidence of the Opposite Party No.1 is not sufficient to prove that the car in question was sold by the complainant to Satish Kumar , prior to the date of accident.

10. Faced with this situation, the learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.1 further argued that car the purchased by the complainant was insured with the Opposite Party no.1 for the period of 18.3.2009 to 17.3.2010.The accident had taken place on 13.2.2010, but by that time the car was not registered with the registration authority, which amounted to fundamental breach of terms and conditions of the insurance contract and as such the insurance company was not liabale to pay any claim to the complainant. In support of his contention he placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled Narender Singh Versus New India Assurance Company Ltd.in Civil Appeal No.8463 of 2014 decided on 4.09.2014.

11. To wrrigle out of the aforesaid contention, the learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that the Opposite Party No.1 has neither repudiated the claim of the comlpainant on the ground of non registration of the car on the date of accident nor pleaded in the written statement that it was not liable to pay compensation as the car was not registered on the date of accident, therefore, it has no right to raise such plea at the time of arguments.

12. No doubt, the Opposite Party No.1 neither pleaded in the written statement nor repudiated the claim of the complaiannt on the ground that car was not registered with the registration authority at the time of accident, but the fact remains that the car was not got registered till the date of accident and the pllea raised by the lelarned counsel for Opposite Party No.1 is legal and as such cannot be ignored. Legal plea can be raised by either of the parties at any stage. Copy of the registration certificate Ex.C22 shows that registration certificate was issued by the registration authority on 3.3.2010 and the said registration was valid upto 2.3.2025. The car in question was insured for the period of 18.3.2009 to 17.3.2010. It means that the same was purchased by the complainant on 18.3.2009 or prior to that. The accident had taken place on 13.2.2010. Thus, it is emphatically clear that registration certificate of the car was not issued by any registration authority till the date of accident. The complainant could not lead evidence worth the name, which may show that he had applied for the registrfation of the car within thirty days of its purchase as required under sections 39 and 43 of the Motor Vehicles Act or prior to the date of accident. The law laid down by the Hom’ble Supreme Court in Narinder Singh’s case (Supra) squarely covers the facts of the present case. In the cited case, temporary registration was granted in respect of the vehicle, which had expired on 11.1.2006 and the alleged accident took place on 2.2.2006, when the vehicle was without any registration. Notrhing was brought on record to show that before or after 11.1.2006 when the period of temporary registration expired, the appellant-owner either applied for permanent registration of the vehicle as contemplated u/s 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act or made any application for extension of the period as temporary registration on the ground of some special reason. Under those circumstances, it was held that using the vehicle at public place without any registration is not only an offence u/s 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act, but also fundamental breach of terms and condtiions of the Insurance Contract. In the present case also, the complainant had neither applied for permanent registration of the car nor got extended period of temporary registration on the ground of some special reason and the car was not registered till the date of accident, therefore, he committed fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance contract and as such not entitled to any claim from insurance company.

13. As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, we do not find any merit in the present complaint and consequently the same is hereby dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly land the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced
dated:31.12.2015

(K.C.Sharma)

President,

District Consumer Disputes

Redressal Forum, Karnal.

(Anil Sharma )

Member.