Punjab

StateCommission

FA/745/2014

United India Insurance Company Limited - Complainant(s)

Versus

Satnam Singh - Opp.Party(s)

D.P. Gupta

12 Mar 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,  PUNJAB  DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.

 

  First Appeal No.745 of 2014                                                    

           Date of institution  :    16.06.2014

Date of decision     :    12.03.2015

 

1.      United India Insurance Company Limited, Head Office, 24,     Whites Road, Chennai-600014.

2.      United India Insurance Company Limited, Motor Dealer Marketing Office, Mata Rani Road, Ludhiana.

3.      United India Insurance Company Limited, Office at Moga,       District Moga.

          (Now all through Dr. S.K. Takyar, Manager, United India           Insurance Company Limited, Regional Office, 136, Feroze     Gandhi Market, Ludhiana)

…….Appellants/Opposite Parties

Versus

Satnam Singh S/o Gurdev Singh, R/o House No.732, Civil Lines, Moga, District Moga.

                                                                   …Respondent/Complainant 

First Appeal against the order dated 15.05.2014 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Moga.

Quorum:- 

 

          Hon’ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh, President

                        Mr. Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member

                        Mrs. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member

Present:-

 

          For the appellants     : Shri D.P. Gupta, Advocate

          For the respondent   : None.

 

 

JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH,  PRESIDENT :

 

                    The appellants/opposite parties have preferred this appeal against the order dated 15.05.2014 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Moga (in short, “District Forum”), vide which the complaint filed by Satnam Singh, respondent/complainant, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, was allowed and the opposite parties-Insurance Company was directed to pay him a sum of Rs.3,63,763/-, on account of repair charges of the insured vehicle, within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the order and failing that, to pay interest on the said amount at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till the realization thereof. They were further directed to pay Rs.2,000/-, as compensation for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.1,000/-, as litigation expenses.

2.           The complainant alleged, in his complaint, that he purchased one car make Indigo CS LS in the year 2011, which was provided registration No.PB-29-M-0359. He got the same insured with opposite party No.3 for the period 28.05.2011 to 27.05.2012. This car met with an accident on 04.12.2011 at 5.30 P.M.; in respect of which FIR No.227 dated 05.12.2011 was got registered in Police Station, Sunam. At the time of the accident, the car was being driven by him and he was holding a valid driving licence. The same was totally damaged in the accident and he incurred expenses of Rs.4,85,018/- for getting the same repaired. The opposite parties refused to pay that amount; though he approached them many a times. This act and conduct on their part amount to deficiency in service; as a result of which he suffered mental tension, physical harassment and financial loss. The opposite parties, being the insurer, are liable to pay that amount, along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum.  In addition to that, he is entitled to Rs.1,00,000/-, as compensation on account of said mental tension etc. and Rs.15,000/-, as litigation expenses.
3.           The opposite parties filed joint written reply before the District Forum, in which they admitted that the complainant got his car insured with opposite party No.3, for the period mentioned in the complaint.  While denying the other allegations made in the complaint, they pleaded that on the day, the car met with an accident, it was not having any registration certificate, as the same was got registered on 16.03.2012. Thus, the complainant violated the rules and regulations of the Motor Vehicles Act. The complaint was filed beyond the period of limitation and is liable to be dismissed on that score. There was no deficiency in service on their part. The complaint is not maintainable and the complainant is estopped from filing the same by his act and conduct. They prayed for the dismissal thereof with costs; being false and frivolous.
4.           Both the sides produced evidence in support of their respective averments before the District Forum, which after going through the same and hearing learned counsel on their behalf, allowed the complaint, vide aforesaid order.
5.           We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants/ opposite parties, as no one appeared on behalf of the complainant at the time of arguments. We have also carefully gone through the records of the case.
6.           It was submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite parties that the District Forum erred in allowing the claim of the complainant on “Non-standard Basis”, by referring to the judgments mentioned in the order. There was no question of allowing the claim on “Non-standard Basis”, as there was no registration certificate of the car at the time of the accident. That not only amounted to the breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, but also the violation of the mandatory provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. The opposite parties were justified in repudiating the claim of the complainant, on the ground that the vehicle was not registered on the date of the accident/loss. In support of his arguments, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2014 (4) R.C.R. (Civil) 272 (Narinder Singh Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited).
7.           The insurance  policy  was proved on the record, as Ex.C-4. Registration number of the car is not mentioned therein. However, the insurance was done by mentioning the engine number and the chassis number. Though, the complainant pleaded in Para No.2 of the complaint that the car was having registration No.PB-29-M-0359, but he did not state as to on which date the registration was obtained and the permanent registration was provided. The registration certificate has been proved on the record by him, as Ex.C-3. A perusal thereof shows that the same was issued on 15.03.2012.  As per the allegations made in the complaint, the loss to the car was caused in the accident, which took place on 04.12.2011. Thus, there was no certificate of registration of the car on the date of loss. It is an admitted fact that the claim made by the complainant was repudiated by the insurance company, on the ground that there was no registration of the car on the date of the accident. The question arises, whether the claim could have been repudiated on that ground and as to whether the District Forum was justified in allowing the claim on “Non-standard Basis”?
8.           According to Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which provides for the necessity for registration, no person can drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle can permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or other place, unless the same is registered in accordance with the Chapter containing that Section. That Section makes the registration of the vehicle, before the same is taken for driving in a public place or in any other public place, to be mandatory. No motor vehicle can be driven in a public place without any valid registration granted by the Registering Authority, in accordance with the provisions of the said Act.  The position was similar in Narinder Singh’s case (supra). The vehicle had met with an accident and for the loss caused to the same, the claim was made by the owner/insured to the insurance company. However, it was found that the vehicle was not registered after the expiry of the temporary registration, on the date of the accident.  The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the insurance company to indemnify the complainant to the extent of 75% on “Non-standard Basis”. The appeal was filed before the State Commission, which was allowed and the complaint was dismissed. Against the order of the State Commission, revision was preferred before the Hon’ble National Commission and the same was also dismissed, with one of the observations that at the time of the accident, the vehicle was being driven without registration, which was prohibited under Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Against that order of the Hon’ble National Commission, the appeal was preferred before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. After discussing the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, pertaining to the registration of the vehicles before taking the same to the public place or other place for driving, the order passed by the Hon’ble National Commission was upheld. The relevant Para of the judgment  is reproduced below:-

 

14.    Indisputably, a temporary registration was granted in respect of the vehicle in question, which had expired on 11.1.2006 and the alleged accident took place on 2.2.2006 when the vehicle was without any registration. Nothing has been brought on record by the appellant to show that before or after 11.1.2006, when the period of temporary registration expired, the appellant, owner of the vehicle either applied for permanent registration as contemplated under Section 39 of the Act or made any application for extension of period as temporary registration on the ground of some special reasons. In our view, therefore, using a vehicle on the public road without any registration is not only an offence punishable under Section 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act but also a fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of policy contract.

 

The ratio of that judgment fully applies to the facts of the present case. The opposite parties were justified in repudiating the claim of the complainant, on the ground that the car was not having registration certificate at the time of the accident, in which the loss was caused to the car. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the order passed by the District Forum is set aside and the complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed.

9.           The appellants had deposited a sum of Rs.25,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal. They deposited another sum of Rs.1,62,896/- on 21.07.2014,  in compliance of the order dated 03.07.2014 passed by this Commission. Both these sums along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Regional Office, 136, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days of the sending of certified copy of the order to them.
10.           The arguments in this case were heard on 09.03.2015 and the order was reserved.  Now, the order be communicated to the parties.
11.           The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.

 

 

                                                        (JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH)

                                                                       PRESIDENT  

                                                         

 

 

                                                        (BALDEV SINGH SEKHON)

                                                                         MEMBER

                                                         

 

 

                                                          (SURINDER PAL KAUR)

March 12, 2015                                   MEMBER

(Gurmeet S)