Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/115/2018

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sneh Lata - Opp.Party(s)

Vinod Chaudhri, Adv.

19 Jul 2018

ORDER

   STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

 

Appeal No.	115 of 2018
Date of Institution	11.05.2018
Date of Decision	19.07.2018

 

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Quiet Office 15, Sector 35A, Chandigarh now through its Regional Manager, Sector 17, Chandigarh.

                                                …..Appellant/Opposite Party No.1

                                      Versus

1. Sneh Lata w/o Sh. Prem Parkash r/o H.No.829, Sector 19, Ward No.16, Panchkula.

                             .....Respondent No.1/Complainant.

2. RSA Motors, Plot no.40, Industrial Area, Phase II, Chandigarh, through its General Manager.

                             .....Respondent No.1/Opposite Party No.2.

BEFORE:    MR. DEV RAJ, PRESIDING MEMBER.

                MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

 

Argued by:

 

Sh. Vinod Chaudhari, Advocate for the appellant.

Sh. Devinder Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.1.

No need to issue notice to respondent No.2 as per order dated 15.05.2018.

 

PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

              This appeal is directed against the order dated 19.03.2018, rendered by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (in short ‘the Forum’ only), vide which, it allowed Consumer Complaint bearing No.442 of 2016 qua Opposite Party No.1 only, with the following directions :-

“12.        In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed. The same is accordingly allowed. The Opposite Party No.1 is directed as under:-

(i)     To settle and pay the claim of the complainant to the tune of Rs.2,35,880/- being repair charges alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of repudiation till realization.

(ii)    To pay to the complainant Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony, physical pain and inconvenience caused;

(iii)   To pay to the complainant Rs.7,000/- as costs of litigation. 

(iv)   To pay the parking charges, if any, levied by Opposite Party No.2, to Opposite Party No.2 for the period the vehicle remained in the workshop of Opposite Party No.2 from the date it is lying repaired, till it is delivered to the Complainant.

                The complaint against Opposite Party No.2 fails and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. 

                  The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Party No.1; thereafter, it be liable for an interest @12% per annum on the amount mentioned in sub-para (i) above from the date of repudiation, till it is paid. The compensation amount as per sub-para (ii) above, shall carry interest @12% per annum from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, apart from compliance of directions at Sr.No.(iii) & (iv) above.”

2.                 The facts, in brief, are that the complainant purchased one Tata Manza Car through Opposite Party No.2, who issued temporary No.CH87T-0235 and Opposite Party No.2 got it insured with Opposite Party No.1 from 03.11.2014 to 02.11.2015 vide insurance policy (Annexure C-1). It was stated that during the currency of the said policy on 27.08.2015, the complainant hired one driver on daily wages namely, Sh. Harpreet Singh, for leaving one of his relatives to Delhi. After dropping the said relative, when the driver was coming back in the early morning of 28.08.2015, he gave free lift to two persons to Karnal. It was further stated that when they reached near Azadpur fly over, it collided with another Mahindra Mini Tourist vehicle and was damaged. FIR bearing No.530/2015 was registered with Police Station, Adarsh Nagar, Delhi. Copy of driving licence of Sh.Harpreet Singh is Annexure C-2. It was further stated that the car was got released from the police custody and then same was brought to Chandigarh at M/s RSA Motors, Industrial Area, Phase II, Chandigarh, where estimate of loss was prepared and Opposite Party was intimated, who appointed Sh.Kailash Chander as Surveyor to access the loss. The car was repaired and final bill of Rs.2,35,880.50 was raised vide invoice (Annexure C-3). However, despite having cashless insurance, Opposite Party No.1 failed to pay the amount and the vehicle was lying with Opposite Party No.2 (RSA Motors), who is demanding parking charges. Ultimately, legal notice dated 18.02.2016 was served upon Opposite Party No.1, but it did not bother to reply the notice. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties were deficient, in rendering service, as also indulged into unfair trade practice.  When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the “Act” only), was filed.

3.                In its written statement, Opposite Party No.1 while admitting the factual matrix of the case stated that on the date of accident,  the complainant was plying the car without a valid registration, in terms of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It was further stated that it is clear from FIR that the said car was booked by one Sh. Sandeep Manchanda and his brother Pankaj Manchanda for Ambala from domestic airport and the driver was driving the car at very high speed, carelessly and negligently. When intimation was received,  an investigator was appointed, who submitted his report dated 23.02.2016, observing that the complainant did not get her car registered after expiry of the temporary registration number on 02.12.2014 and she was using the car without Taxi permit as well and, as such, the claim was repudiated vide letter dated 04.04.2016. It was further stated that Opposite Party No.1 was neither deficient, in rendering service nor indulged into unfair trade practice.

4.                After receipt of the notice, Sh.Narender Kumar, Bodyshop Service Advisor appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.2 on 09.08.2016 but thereafter, none appeared on its behalf. Hence, Opposite Party No.2 was proceeded against exaprte vide order dated 14.12.2016.

5.                The complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party No.1, wherein she reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and refuted those, contained in the written version of Opposite Party No.1. 

6.                The parties led evidence, in support of their case.

7.                After hearing Counsel for the complainant and Counsel for Opposite Party No.1 and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the Forum, allowed the complaint only qua Opposite Party No.1, as stated above. 

8.                Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/Opposite Party No.1.

9.                We have heard Counsel for the appellant/Opposite Party No.1 & Counsel for respondent No.1/complainant and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 

10.               Counsel for the appellant/Opposite Party No.1  submitted that at the time of accident of the vehicle, the same was not registered with any authority and under Section 39 of the Motor Vehicle Act mandates that no vehicle can be brought on road unless the same is validly registered. He further submitted that the owner was plying the car without registration from 02.11.2014 to 28.08.2015. He further submitted that the insured Sh. Pankaj Malhotra, who had hired the car also filed a claim before the MACT, Ambala and the said Tribunal was pleased to absolve the insurer on the ground of violation of law and only held the driver and owner liable to indemnify the loss. He further submitted that the Forum is totally silent with regard to comprehensive report of the investigator, who has clearly stated that vehicle was being plied without proper registration and used as a taxi with private insurance package policy, which was also clear violation of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Copy of report of investigator is Annexure A-2. He prayed for allowing the appeal and setting aside the impugned order.

11.               Counsel for respondent No.1/complainant submitted that the Forum has rightly passed the impugned order and prayed for dismissal of the appeal filed by Opposite Party No.1.

12.               After going through the evidence and record of the case, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be allowed, for the reasons to be recorded, hereinafter.

13.               The core question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the Forum has rightly passed the impugned order. The answer, to this, question is in the negative.  It is the admitted fact that the vehicle of the complainant i.e. Tata Manza Car insured with Opposite Party No.1 for the period from 03.11.2014 to 02.11.2015 vide insurance policy (Annexure C-1). It is also the admitted fact that during the currency of the policy, on 27.08.2015, the complainant hired one driver on daily wages, namely, Sh.Harpreet Singh for leaving one of his relatives to Delhi. It is also the admitted fact that after dropping the said relative, when the driver was coming back in the early morning of 28.08.2015, he gave free lift to two persons to Karnal and on its way, the vehicle met with an accident and was badly damaged. It is also the admitted fact that FIR was also registered with Police Station, Adarsh Nagar, Delhi. It is also not in dispute that after release of the vehicle from the police custody, the same was brought to Opposite Party No.2 for its repair. The car was repaired and final bill of Rs.2,35,880.50 was raised vide invoice (Annexure C-3). It is also the admitted fact that Sh.Kailash Chander was appointed as Surveyor, who assessed the loss vide report dated 23.02.2016 (Annexure A-2 alongwith appeal). The relevant portion of detailed assessment reads thus :-

“In pursuance to the instructions from the insurers, undersigned inspected the captioned car at Berkeley Tata Motors, Industrial Area II, Chandigarh in damaged condition. In the police report, it is reported by Mr.Sandeep Manchanda that he hired the above number taxi from domestic air port on line. The car is insured as private car where as it was being used as commercial use. This is the violation of the terms and conditions of the policy under section LIMITATION AS TO USE. More over the car was being used on a temporary registration no. which was valid up to 02.12.2014. This was informed to the insurers vide mail dated 19.10.2015. Not withstanding to the above, loss is assessed as under the insurers may deal it on merits. As per the police report, Driver is Mr.Harpreet Singh S/o Sh. Noginder Singh, were as the driver as per claim form is Harpreet Singh S/o Sh. Joginder Singh.”

In the aforesaid report, cause and nature of accident reads thus :-

“The insured stated in the claimform that a mini bus was parked on the road and in the light of the vehicles driver could not see the bus and it hit into the back of the bus but in the police report, it is recorded that the driver was driving rash and carelessly and hit into the back of a mini bus No.UA 08 J 3306.”

14.               Based on the above Surveyor’s report, the appellant vide its letter dated 04.04.2016 repudiated the claim of the respondent on two grounds, the relevant portion of the said letter reads thus :-

“(i) That the vehicle at the relevant time of accident was being used in contravention to the terms and conditions of the policy and Motor Vehicles Act in as much as the car was being plied on temporary registration number valid upto 02.12.2014, whereas it was mandatory to get the car registered in accordance with the Motor Vehicles Act within 30 days from the date of purchase of vehicle.

(ii)        That the vehicle was insured as private car whereas at the relevant time of occurrence the vehicle was being used for ferrying passengers on hire and reward as the same is evident from the copy of FIR lodged against the driver by the occupants of vehicle.”

15.               From the above, it is abundantly clear that the vehicle was being plied without proper registration and used as a taxi with Private Insurance Package Policy and also there was clear violation of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

“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.”

16.               Since the complainant was plying the vehicle without a valid registration, at the time of accident on 28.08.2015, the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgment titled as “Narinder Singh Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited and Ors., Civil Appeal No.8463 of 2014, decided on 04.09.2014, wherein it was held as under:-

“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”.

17.               In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the repudiation of the claim made by the Insurance Company seems to be genuine.

18.               Accordingly, the appeal filed by The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. is allowed and the impugned order is set aside.

19.               Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

20.               The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.  

Pronounced.

July 19^th, 2018.                              

 [DEV RAJ]

PRESIDING MEMBER

                                                                       

                                                           (PADMA PANDEY)

        MEMBER

rb