Haryana

Ambala

CC/146/2020

Smt Sukhvinder Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shri Ram Agro Agencies - Opp.Party(s)

Mewa Ram Sounti

16 Aug 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

 

                                                                      Complaint case no.         :    146 of 2020

                                                          Date of Institution           :     13.08.2020

                                                          Date of decision     :     16.08.2022.

Smt. Sukhvinder Kaur wife of Sh.Sukbir Singh, resident of House No.23/51, Village Mehlan (318), Saunta, Tehsil and District Ambala, Haryana.

                                                                                ……. Complainant.

                                                Versus

1. Shri Ram Agro Agencies, Sadhoura Road, Naraingarh, District Ambala through its authorized signatory (Authorized Dealer Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.)
2. IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited, IFCO Bhawan, Plot No.2, Sector 28-A, 3rd Floor, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh 160002 through its authorized signatory.

                                                                                       ….…. Opposite Parties.

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                    Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member.            

                            

Present:       Shri Mewa Ram, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

OP No.1 already ex parte.

Shri R.K.Vig, Advocate, counsel for the OP No.2.

 

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President

1.                Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1. To withdraw the letter/reply dated 19.6.2020 and give the claim to the complainant.
2. To give the benefit of the said policy to the complainant and pay an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- i.e. damages/cause the loss of the complainant with regard to the said tractor as per the terms and conditions of the opposite parties/respondents alongwith interest.
3. To pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for financial loss, mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.  
4. To pay Rs.22,000/- as litigation expenses.

                                      OR

Grant any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit.

2.     Brief facts of the case are that, on 29.07.2019, the complainant purchased Tractor make Mahindra Arjun 5550 AP. 48.5, bearing registration No.HR01AU-3882 (Old No.HR/NEW0142 2019) (in short the vehicle) from OP No.1- vide Invoice No.851. At the time of purchasing the said vehicle, OP No.1 assured the complainant, it will be duly insured from OP No.2 and that it will also issue registration certificate in respect of the same. Resultantly, it was insured with OP No.2 vide Policy No.M9280912, valid from 30.07.2019 to 29.07.2020. On 30.12.2019, when the driver of the complainant namely Parveen Singh was plying the said vehicle to the field for irrigation, it met with at accident i.e. it hit with a tree, near Bhuni Road, near village Mehlan, Tehsil and District Ambala. Since, the vehicle in question had been insured, as such, claim alongwith necessary documents were submitted with OP No.2 but it lingered on the matter, on one pretext or the other. Ultimately, OP No.2 repudiated the claim of the complainant, vide letter dated 19.6.2020 on false and frivolous grounds. By not reimbursing the claim amount, despite the fact that the vehicle in question was under insurance cover at the time of the above accident, the OPs have committed deficiency in service. Hence, the present complaint.
3.           Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of the OP No.1 before this Commission, therefore, he was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 27.07.2021. 
4.           Upon notice, OP No.2, appeared and filed written version, raised preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, cause of action, not come with clean hands and suppressed the material facts etc. On merits, while admitting factual matrix of the case with regard to the fact of issuance of the insurance policy in question, in respect of the vehicle in question, as mentioned in the consumer complaint, has not been disputed by OP No.2.  It has been stated that  the complainant took Policy bearing Certificate No. #M9280912 in respect to the vehicle in question from OP No.2, valid for the period from 30.07.2019 to 29.07.2020. The Insurance Policy was issued subject to terms and conditions, which governs the present claim of the complainant. On receipt of information regarding the said accident, one IRDA licensed and approved surveyor Mr. Manoj Kumar Saxena was immediately deputed to assess the loss, who gave his report dated 20.05.2020, Annexure OP-2/3. From the said report, it was found that the vehicle in question was not having any valid temporary or permanent registration number at the time of the accident, which reportedly took place on 30.12.2019 & the said  vehicle remained unregistered upto 12.01.2020, which was against the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 and also fundamental breach of terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy as well. The vehicle in question was ultimately got registered on 13.01.2020 with Registration No.HR-01-AU-3882. The claim of the complainant was, as such, not payable and was rightly repudiated vide letter dated 19-06-2020, Annexure OP-2/1. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by the answering OP No.2 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with costs.
5.           Learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW-1/A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to C-5 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP No.2 tendered affidavit of Sameer Gupta, Authorized Signatory of IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited, Iffco Bhawan, 3^rd Floor, Plot No.2B & C, Sector 28-A, Chandigarh and affidavit of Shri Manoj Kumar Saxena, Insurance Surveyor/Loss Assessor, # 207, Ist Floor, Wadhvan Nagar, Dhakoli, Zirakpur (Mohali) as Annexure OP-2/A and OP2/B alongwith documents Annexure OP-2/1 to OP-2/7 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.2.
6.           We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and learned counsel for the OP No.2 and carefully gone through the case file and also gone through the written arguments filed by the learned counsel for the OP No. 2.
7.           Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that because the said accident in respect of the vehicle in question took place during the subsistence of insurance policy in question, as such, OP No.2 was under legal obligation to pay the claim amount but her genuine claim was repudiated on flimsy grounds, which act amounts to deficiency in providing service, negligence and adoption of unfair trade practice on  the part of OP No.2. 
8.           On the contrary, the learned counsel for the OP No.2 submitted that since the complainant failed to get the vehicle in question registered after expiry of its temporary registration and even on the date of accident, the vehicle was not registered with any Licenceing Authority and on the other hand, it was only got registered with the Licencing Authority Ambala on 13.01.2020, as such, her claim was rightly repudiated by OP No.2.
9.           The only issue for consideration in this case is, as to whether the insured-complainant is entitled to claim compensation for damages in respect of the vehicle in question,  when admittedly the vehicle was being driven on the date of accident without any valid registration thereof or not. To answer this question, it is necessary to refer the provisions of Section 39 and Section 43 of Motor Vehicles Act, relevant part of which are reproduced hereunder:-

“39. Necessity for registration.—No person shall drive any motor vehicle 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.

"43. Temporary registration.—(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 40 the owner of a motor vehicle may apply to any registering authority or other prescribed authority to have the vehicle temporarily registered in the prescribed manner and for the issue in the prescribed manner of a temporary certificate of registration and a temporary registration mark."

(2) A registration made under this section shall be valid only for a period not exceeding one month, and shall not be renewable:

Provided that where a motor vehicle so registered is a chassis to which a body has not been attached and the same is detained in a workshop beyond the said period of one month for being fitted with a body or any unforeseen circumstances beyond the control of the owner, the period may, on payment of such fees, if any, as may be prescribed, be extended by such further period or periods as the registering authority or other prescribed authority, as the case may be, may allow.

(3) In a case where the motor vehicle is held under hire-purchase agreement, lease or hypothecation, the registering authority or other prescribed authority shall issue a temporary certificate of registration of such vehicle, which shall incorporate legibly and prominently the full name and address of the person with whom such agreement has been entered into by the owner.”

10.           A bare perusal of Section 39 clearly says that no person shall drive the vehicle in any public place without any valid registration granted by the registering authority in accordance with the provisions of the MV Act.

Furthermore, as per Section 43, the owner of the vehicle may apply to the registering authority for temporary registration and a temporary registration mark. If such temporary registration is granted by the authority, the same shall be valid only for a period not exceeding one month. Thus, the proviso to Section 43 clearly says  that the said period of one month may be extended for such a further period by the registering authority only in a case where a temporary registration is granted in respect of chassis to which body has not been attached and the same is detained in a workshop beyond the said period of one month for being fitted with a body or unforeseen circumstances beyond the control of the owner.

11.           Admittedly, in the present case, there is nothing on record that after expiry of temporary registration of the vehicle in question, the vehicle in question was  got registered with any Licencing Authority by the complainant. On the other hand, it is clearly coming out from the Registration Certificate, Annexure OP-2/6 that the same had been issued by the Licencing Authority, Ambala, only on 14.10.2010 i.e. after more than 443 days from the date of purchase (29.07.2019) of the said vehicle and 275 days from the date of accident (13.01.2020), meaning thereby that on the date of accident, which took place on 13.01.2020, the vehicle in question was being plied without any registration thereof. Nothing has been brought on record by the complainant to show that before or after expiry of period of temporary registration, she 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 or unforeseen circumstances beyond her control. In this view of the matter, plying the vehicle in question, 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. As such, under those circumstances, if the insurance company-OP No.2 repudiated the claim of the complainant, it cannot be held to be deficient in providing service or guilty of adoption of unfair trade practice. Our this view is fully supported by the principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case titled as Narinder Singh Versus New India Assurance Company Ltd, decided on 4^th September, 2014 (CIVIL APPEAL No.8463 of 2014) wherein it was held that plying a vehicle on the date of accident, without a valid registration, amounting to a clear violation of Sections 39 and 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which is a fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of the policy, entitling the insurer-insurance company to repudiate the claim under the policy. This was reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case titled as  United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Sushil Kumar Godara on 30 September, 2021 (CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5887 OF 2021).  The principle of law laid down in these cases are fully applicable to the present case.
12.           In view of peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, it is held that since the claim of the complainant has been rightly and legally repudiated by OP No.2, and at the same time, she failed to prove her case that the said repudiation was illegal or arbitrary, therefore, no relief can be given to her. Resultantly, this complaint stands dismissed with no order as to cost. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced on: 16.08.2022.

 

 

 

                         (Ruby Sharma)                                                (Neena Sandhu)

                              Member                                                         President