IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
SONITPUR AT TEZPUR
District: Sonitpur
Present: Smti A. Devee
President,
District Consumer D.R Forum,
Sonitpur, Tezpur
Smti S.Bora
Member(F)
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sonitpur
Sri P.Das
Member(Gen.)
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sonitpur
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.31/2015
1.Kashmi Atma Sahayak Got : Complainant
(Kashmi Self Help Group)
Represented by (Secretary) Md Hafizul Islam
S/O: Md Abdul Ali
Vill: Batamari, P.O: kaliabhomora
P.S: Tezpur
Dist: Sonitpur,Assam
Vs.
1.State of Assam : Opp party No.1
Represented by Chief Engineer, Director of Agriculture
Kamrup, Guwahati-22
2.Executive Engineer (Agriculture) : Opp. party No.2
Tezpur Division, Tezpur
Hazarapar, Tezpur-784001
Dist: Sonitpur,Assam
3.Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd
Tezpur Branch.
Appearance:
Mr.Rajib Boruah,Adv. : For the Complainant
Mr.A.K.Paul, Adv. : For the Opp. party
Date of argument : 21/09/2019
Date of Judgment : 15/10/2019
J U D G M E N T
- Facts, in brief, leading to the complaint are that complainant, a Self-Help Group viz. “Kashmi Atma Sahayak Gut” at Batamari under Tezpur P.S on application under Assam Bikash Yojana Scheme 2008-2009 was delivered a tractor on 20-03-2013. Complainant insured the vehicle with the opposite party No.3 at a premium of Rs.9,653/- and the sum assured under the policy was Rs.6,30,000/-.The sale and purchase certificate issued by the opposite party No.2 was submitted before the DTO,Tezpur on 23-07-2013. But pending registration of the vehicle the same was stolen on 12-09-2013. Complainant lodged ejahar which was registered as Tezpur P.S Case No.1173/13. But insurance claim having been turned down by the opposite party No.3, hence, the instant complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties praying a total relief of Rs.8.00 lakhs.
- Opposite parties contested the case by filing respective’s written versions. While Opp. party No.1 & 2 in their joint written version admitted of having allotted the tractor to the Complainant under the Scheme but had prayed for striking off their names from the purview of the proceeding on grounds of misjoinder, the opposite party No.3 on the other hand, although had admitted of insurance of the vehicle under it but had expressed its inability to settle the claim on ground of policy violation for non-registration of the tractor with the authority concerned as required under the law and also for inability of the complainant to submit necessary documents required for settlement of the claim.
- Complainant represented by Secretary of the self-help group named Hafijul Islam examined the Secretary as witness who submitted his evidence in chief on affidavit. Through the said witness, Complainant exhibited 3(three) documents. Opposite party No.3 adduced the evidence of its administrative officer. Both the witnesses were cross-examined.
We have carefully gone through the entire materials on record and draw the following points for determination of the dispute.
POINT FOR DETERMINATION
- Whether there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties ?
- Whether Complainant is entitled to get any compensation?
DECISION ON THE POINTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION
4.POINT NO.(i): Claim of the Complainant was turned down by the Insurance Company for its failure to produce the following documents-
a)Original Policy Copy.
b)Claim form duly completed and signed
c)Copy of fitness in case of commercial vehicle
d)R.C Book in original
e)Final Police Report u/s 173 IPC duly accepted by the Court
f)Ignition key of vehicle
g)Fitness(in case of commercial vehicle)
h)DTO,RTO’s form No.29,30 and 35 duly signed
i)Report of NCRB(National Crime Record Bureau)
5. Admittedly and evidently complainant, inspite of receiving all the required documents for registration of the vehicle from the opposite party No.2 failed to take any action to get the vehicle registered with competent authority as required under the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act.Complainant even failed to bring any document that requisite fee for registration of the vehicle was paid. It is found from para-3 of the complaint that Complainant had received the vehicular documents from the opposie party No.2 on 23-07-2013 and the vehicle was allegedly stolen on the night of 12-09-2013. The matter was brought to the notice of Police by filing written ejahar. Ext-3 is the certified copy of ejahar. As per Ext-3(1) which was lodged on 13-09-13, the vehicle in question was purchased about 5/6 months back.
6. Complainant side, placing reliance on a judgment of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in ‘Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pratim Jha’ (Arising out of Revision Petition No.171/2012 and decided on 27-04-2012) submitted that the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission held that the Insurance Company is not entitled to repudiate the claim merely on the ground that the vehicle had not been registered.
7. Against the applicability to the above referred judgment, we would like to note that the Hon’ble National Commission recently on 01-09-2016 in ‘Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. vs Vikram Kanda’, 2016 SCC Online NCDRC 1108 held that non-registration of a vehicle is a fundamental breach of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988. In the said judgment the Hon’ble Commission placed reliance on decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Narinder Singh vs New India Assurance Company Ltd. & others (2014) 9 SCC 324 Civil Appeal No.8963 of 2014 decided on 04-09-2014. In the matter of non-registration of the vehicle, the Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down the principle of law to the effect that loss thereof occurred then, the Insurance Company could legally and validly repudiate the claim of the insured in ‘toto’.
8. The National Commission in the above referred judgment of Vikram Kanda’s case also noted its decision passed in ‘Kaushalendra kumar Mishra vs. Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd.’, R.P No.4043/2008, decided on 16-02-2012-II (2012)CPJ 189(NC) that use of the vehicle in violation of law itself will take it beyond the protection of the Policy.
9. Ext-3(1) (ejahar) clearly reveals that the vehicle was used by the “Atma Sahayak Gut” for earning profit. Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act provides that “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”.
10. Section 39 makes it abundantly clear that no person shall use the motor vehicle in public place, without a valid registration, in accordance with the provisions of the Act. But from our foregoing discussion, we have found that the vehicle was used by the Complainant without registration i.e., in violation of the existing provisions of law.
11. We have carefully taken note of the relevant provisions of law that govern the matter in dispute discussed above.For the reasons stated above and following the mandate of the Hon’ble Apex Court, we have no other option but to decide the Point No.(i) in the negative.
12. At this juncture, we are of the opinion that the decision relied on by the Complainant is no longer applicable to a case like the one under discussion.
POINT NO.(ii) In view of decision of Point No.(i) that there was no deficiency in service, the Complainant is entitled to get nothing.
O R D E R
Consequently the case fails and stands dismissed.
Given under our hands and seal of this Forum this 26th day of December, 2017.
Dictated and corrected by: Pronounced and delivered
( A.Devee)
President (A. DEVEE)
District Consumer D.R Forum,Sonitpur President
Tezpur District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Sonitpur,Tezpur
We agree:- (P.DAS) (SMT.S.BORA)
Member Member
