STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION
BIHAR, PATNA
Appeal No. 187 of 2018
Branch Manager, Magma HDI General Insurance Co. Ltd. Magma House, 2nd Floor, Shiv Laxmi Plaza, Opposite Rajendra Nagar Terminal, Kankarbagh, Main Road, Patna through its authorized signatory Shikhar Sinha, Deputy Manager, Magma HDI General Insurance Co. Ltd., Patna
…. O.P no. 1/ Appellant
Versus
1. Rinki Devi, W/o- Badrinarayan Bhagat, Resident of Village- Bilashpur, PS- Kargahar, District- Rohtas
…. Respondent 1st Set /Complainant
2. Manager, Sunrise Autos Pvt. Ltd. N.H.2, Aurangabad, Bihar
…. Opposite Party no. 2/ Respondent no. 2nd Set
Counsel for the appellant: Adv. Rajesh Chandra Narayan
Counsel for the respondent: Adv. Pritam Kumar
Dated 02.02.2023
As per Sanjay Kumar, President.
O r d e r
Present appeal has been filed on behalf of appellant/O.P. no. 1 for setting aside the order dated 08.05.2018 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtas (Sasaram) in Complaint Case no. 34 of 2017 whereby and whereunder the Ld. District Consumer Forum, Siwan has directed the appellant to pay Rs. 9,71,240/ along with Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation cost total Rs. 9,86,240/- within two months failing which interest @8% per annum shall become payable.
Briefly stated the facts of the case is that complainant had purchased one Mahindra Scorpio vehicle on payment of Rs. 9,71,240/- from Sunrise Autos Pvt. Ltd (O.P. no. 2) for which loan was granted by Magma Finance Corporation Ltd and was insured by Magma HDI General Insurance Co. Ltd. (O.P. no. 1) for the period 05.12.2016 to 04.12.2017. Loan was to be repaid in equal monthly installments of Rs. 32,000/- per month. Complainant has further stated that from her account number as maintained in SBI she transferred a sum of Rs. 75,600/- in the account of Sunrise Autos Pvt. Ltd. for registration of purchased vehicle but instead of depositing the amount in D.T.O office for registration of vehicle he used said amount for some personal gain and deposited said amount on 14.12.2016 for temporary registration.
The newly purchased vehicle of complainant met an accident on 09.12.2016 for which FIR was lodged giving rise to Kudra PS Case no. 305 of 2016 U/s 279, 304A, 337, 338 & 447 of I.P.C and on said date vehicle was not registered in D.T.O office.
Complainant filed claim for payment of insured amount for loss suffered by her before the insurance company but same was repudiated by the insurance company vide order dated 06.03.2017 on the ground that on the date of accident the vehicle was not registered.
Aggrieved by the order of repudiation dated 06.03.2017 of the insurance company complainant filed a complaint case before the District Consumer Forum, Rohtas (Sasaram).
Notices were issued to opposite party no. 1 and opposite party no. 2 and written statement was filed on behalf of opposite party no. 1, however, there was no appearance on behalf of opposite party no. 2 and case proceeded ex-parte against him.
It is was submitted on behalf of opposite party no. 1 (insurance company) that vehicle was being plied on public road without registration which is a fundamental breach of terms and conditions of insurance policy as well as Motor Vehicle Act, as such her claim was rightly repudiated. In support of his contention counsel for the insurance company relied upon judgment of Supreme Court in which it was held that without registration, vehicle can not ply on public road and if there is any mis-happening to the vehicle insurance company is not liable to compensate/indemnify the owner of the vehicle.
It was further argued that there has been neither any delay in deciding the claim of the complainant nor there is any deficiency in service by the insurance company as such claim is fit to be dismissed against insurance company. Two documents were exhibited by the insurance company i.e repudiation letter (exhibit-A) and surveyor report (Exhibit-B).
The District Consumer Forum on appreciation of evidence available on record held that on 05.12.2016 after purchasing the vehicle complainant had deposited insurance amount and registration amount for which insurance policy was issued on the same day but the dealer did not deposit the registration fees in D.T.O office and but deposited it on 14.12.2016 Mean while vehicle met an accident on 09.12.2016 when the vehicle was not registered due to fault of Sunrise Autos Pvt. Ltd. (O.P. no. 2) as such there was no fault of complainant to get the vehicle registered.
The District Consumer Forum by its order dated 08.05.2018 allowed the complaint case and directed insurance company to pay the insured amount to the complainant, aggrieved by which present appeal has been filed by the insurance company.
Notices were issued upon which complainant appeared however inspite of valid service of notice respondent no. 2 (Manager, Sunrise Autos Pvt. Ltd) did not appear and appeal proceeded ex-parte against him.
Counsel for the appellant insurance company has relied upon a recent judgment of Apex Court in case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sushil Kumar Godara since reported in 2021 ACJ 2673 decided on 30.09.2021 and in case of Narinder Singh Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2014) 9 SCC 324 in which the Apex Court has held that without registration the vehicle can not be driven on public road and if vehicle is damaged or stolen insurance company is not liable to compensate/indemnify the owner of the vehicle.
The case referred by the insurance company does not apply in facts and circumstances of present case as in the cases as referred the period of temporary registration had expired and no effort was made for renewal of temporary registration or to deposit the fee for permanent registration.
In present case the vehicle is insured and the owner of the vehicle had already deposited the registration fee to the dealer (Manager, Sunrise Autos Pvt. Ltd) and her case is covered by a circular of insurance company dated 23.03.2015 (referred in the case since report in 2019 (2) CPJ 42 (NC) which reads as follows:
“ At the same time, requirement of registration of the vehicle before its use at a public place being statutory in nature, it cannot be altogether ignored while considering an insurance claim on such a vehicle.
Keeping in view the totality of situation and striking a fair balance between the interest of various stake holders, in the sprit of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, therefore, the GMs (Motor) decided to treat claims on Motor Vehicles meeting with accident at a time when there was no valid registration of the vehicle in the following manner:
1. In cases where the material on record available show that the insured had deposited the requisite registration fee of the vehicle either with the RTO or with the dealer/sub-dealer, from where the vehicle was purchased, before the vehicle meets with an accident, while the registration is still in process/pending after such deposit of registration fee, claims arising out of such an accident may be settled on standard basis.
2. In cases where the insured had not deposited the requisite registration fee on the vehicle either with the RTO or with the dealer/sub-dealer from where the vehicle was purchased, before the vehicle meets with an accident, but the facts and circumstances of the case do point out that there was genuine reasons for his failure to even deposit the registration fee before the accident taking place, such cases should be settled on non-standard basis (not exceeding 75% of the normally admissible amount of the subject claim) by the Competent Authority as provided under the Financial Standing Orders of the Company for the time being in force, taking into account the overall facts and circumstances of the case.
3. In cases where the insured had neither deposited the requisite registration fee on the vehicle either with the RTO or with the dealer/sub-dealer, from where the vehicle was purchased, before the vehicle meets with an accident, nor there were genuine reasons for his failure to even deposit the registration fee before the accident taking place, such claims should be repudiated in the normal course by the usual Competent Authority.”
For the reasons as stated above the appeal is partly allowed and insurance company (opposite party no. 1) shall settle the claim on non-standard basis (75%) with interest within 30 days from date/receipt/production of copy of order passed by this Commission. However, order of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- as cost of litigation is set aside.
As complainant had deposited the registration fee to the dealer on date of purchase of the vehicle i.e 05.12.2016 but dealer defaulted in not depositing the registration fee in the D.T.O office for issuance of registration certificate as such 25% of the insured amount with interest and Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for physical and mental harassment and Rs. 5,000/- as cost of litigation shall be paid by Manager, Sunrise Autos Pvt. Ltd (Opposite party no. 2) within 30 days from the date/receipt/production of copy of order passed by this Commission.
Accordingly, Appeal is partly allowed.
(Ram Prawesh Das) (Sanjay Kumar,J)
Member President
Md. Fariduzzama
