Haryana

StateCommission

A/421/2016

BHARTI AXA GEN.INSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SUNIL KUMAR NAUTIAL - Opp.Party(s)

INDERJIT SINGH

08 Jun 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      421 of 2016

Date of Institution:      13.05.2016

Date of Decision :       08.06.2016

 

Bharti Axa General Insurance Company Limited Regional Office SCO No.350,351,352, 1^st Floor Sector 34-A, Chandigarh through its authorised signatory through its Ms. Shivali Sharma, Senior Executive (Legal), Claims available at Bharti AXA General Insurance Company Limited Mercantile House, 7^th Floor, 15, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001.

                                      Appellant/Opposite Party

Versus

 

1.      Sunil Kumar Nauttial s/o Sh. Pitambar Dutt, House No.49, Tyagi Garden Gobindpuri Road, Yamuna Nagar City, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar, Haryana.

Respondent/Complainant

 2.     Khanna Car Plaza, PL Jagadhri City, District Yamuna Nagar through its Proprietor/MD/Manager.

                                      Respondent/Opposite Party No.2

 

CORAM:             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Present:               Shri Inderjit Singh, Advocate for appellant.       

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

This appeal has been filed by Bharti Axa General Insurance Company Limited-Opposite Party No.1, against the order dated February 24^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,  Yamuna Nagar (for short ‘the District Forum’) whereby Complaint No.559 of 2011 filed by complainant/respondent No.1, was accepted issuing direction as under:-

“…we partly allow the complaint of complainant and direct the OP No.1 Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.48477/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till its realization and further the OP No.1 is also directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment as well as litigation expenses.”

2.      Sunil Kumar Nautial-Complainant (respondent No1 herein) purchased a car (Hyundai I10 ERA) bearing Engine No. 149626, Chassis No.757415 (Temporary Registration No.HR-99FY-0069) on November 4^th, 2010 and got it insured with Bharti Axa General Insurance Company Limited (for short ‘the Insurance Company’)-Opposite Party No.1/appellant, from November 4^th, 2010 to November 3^rd, 2011 for Rs.3,64,173/- vide Insurance Policy (Annexure-A).  The car met with an accident on December 12^th, 2010 in the area of Village Barwala, District Panchkula while on the way to Chandigarh. Daily Diary Report No.10 dated 12.12.2010 (Annexure-B) was lodged in Police Post, Barwala. On being informed, the Insurance Company appointed its surveyor who inspected the car and assessed the loss to the extent of Rs.48,477/-. The complainant got the car repaired from Khanna Car Plaza Workshop Jagadhri. Claim being filed was repudiated by the Insurance Company on the ground that on the date of accident, the car was not registered with the Registering Authority. Hence, complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed before the District Forum.

3.      The Insurance Company-Opposite Party No.1/appellant, in its reply stated that the car was purchased on November 4^th, 2010 with Temporary Registration No.HR-99FY-0069, which was valid only for 30 days, that is, up to December 3^rd, 2010. The accident took place on December 12, 2010. Thus, on the date of accident the car was without any valid registration number and therefore the Insurance Company was not liable to indemnify the complainant because of violation of the provisions of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicle Act on the part of the complainant. It was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

4.      On appraisal of the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum allowed complaint and directed the Insurance Company as detailed in paragraph No.1 of this order.

5.      The solitary submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant/insurance Company is that since the complainant did not get the car registered with the Registering Authority by obtaining permanent registration number within 30 days from the date of its purchase, so the Insurance Company was not liable to indemnify the complainant.

6.      The submission made is not convincing. It is not in dispute that Permanent Registration number of the car was issued by the Registering Authority, Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar on December 31^st, 2010 which is valid upto November 4^th, 2025.  Thus, when the car was registered by the Registering Authority by accepting the late fee from the complainant and the Registration Certificate valid up to November 4^th, 2025 was issued; the compliance of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicle Act was done and consequently the Insurance Company is liable to pay the benefits of insurance to the complainant.

7.      While deciding the identical issue, Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition No.626 2013 “M/s Aroma Paints Ltd. versus The New India Assurance Com. Ltd. and others” decided on August 7^th, 2013, held as under:-

“11.   The counsel for the petitioner/complainant has cited the following three judgments of this Commission.

(1) RP No.52 of 2012, Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Pearls Buildwell Infrastructure Ltd. & Ors., headed by the Bench, Hon’ble Mr.Justice Ashok Bhan, decided on 27.02.2012, reported as II (2012) CPJ 102 (NC). 

 

(2)  In HDFC  Chubb General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ila Gupta& Ors.,  I (2007) CPJ 274 (NC), decided on 14.12.2006, in Para 2 of the judgment, it was observed :

 

          “As far as getting a Permanent Registration Number is concerned, admittedly, for want of a good Registration Number, more time was taken and the respondent got it registered later.  In the present case, non-registration of the Vehicle did not lead to this accident.  It was just a damage arising out of a car falling into the pothole.  It is not the case of the petitioner that they were not aware of the car being registered under the Temporary Registration Number, while the policy was issued.  An amount of Rs.81,476/- was paid as a premium for getting the car comprehensively insured.  As it was very much  within the knowledge of the  petitioner Insurance Company that the policy could not continue to be valid due to non-provision of the Permanent  Registration  Number, they  should have cancelled the policy in order to make the  respondent  take  another policy or revalidate  the same according  to  the  policy conditions or  whatever that was required to be done.  This has not been done by the petitioner Insurance Company”.

 

In RP No. 497 of 2012, The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Swami Devi Dayal, the Bench headed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhan, decided on 14.02.2012, wherein it was held :-

 

          “Petitioner being aggrieved, filed an appeal before the State Commission.  State Commission dismissed the appeal by observing as under:-

          It has not been disputed that complainant purchased new vehicle on 24.09.2007 and cover note was issued by insuring the new vehicle with engine number and chassis number.  The vehicle met with an accident on 02.11.2008.  The claim of the complainant was repudiated on the sole ground that the complainant failed to get the vehicle registered within the specified period of 30 days from the date of sale.  Contention was raised  that  the temporary registration was valid for 30 days, i.e., up to 23.10.2007 and District Forum observing that not getting vehicle registered was not a disability, disentitling the complainant of indemnification of charges for repair allowed the complaint.  Admittedly, the vehicle was registered with engine number and chassis number along with the name of owner.  Registration authority has registered the vehicle with permanent registration number HR-03-J-3077 on 18.01.2008 by compounding the delay.  Thus provision of MVA stood complied with.  When  the contract of insurance company  was  by  engine  number  and chassis number of the vehicle and the delay, if any, in getting the permanent registration, stood  condoned  by  the registration authority, OPs  admitting the factum of accident  and the damage, could not have repudiated the claim on the sole ground that vehicle was not permanently registered within the period of 30 days.  Hon’ble National Commission in similar situated case reported as HDFC Chubb General Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs. Ila Gupta& Ors., 1 (2007) CPJ 274, held as under :-  [already referred].

 

12.    Otherwise too, the whole gamut of the facts and circumstances leans on the side of the consumer.  First of all, this is not a condition laid down in the insurance policy.  If the complainant did not have the registration number, he is liable to be punished under Section 192, which provides that, whosoever  drives  a motor vehicle, or causes or  allows a  motor  vehicle,  to  be  used in  contravention  of  the  provisions  of  Section  39,  shall  be punishable  for the first offence, with  a  fine,  which  may  extend to five thousand rupees, but shall not be less  than  two  thousand rupees, for a second or subsequent offence, with  imprisonment,  which  may  extend to one year or with fine, which may extend  to  ten thousand rupees,  but  shall not be less than five thousand rupees or, with both. 

13.    It is difficult to fathom as to why Section 192 can be made applicable under the circumstances.  The insurance company does not enjoin the powers of traffic police.  They cannot dismiss the claim under the guise of Section 192 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.  Section 192 of the said Act, pertains to the powers of the traffic police and the court.  It does not give any power to the insurance company to press this Section into service, while dismissing the claim of the claimant/ complainant.  Thirdly, it is mere negligence and in-action on the part of the complainant.  There is no evidence to show that he had an ulterior motive.  It is difficult to understand, why he should be deprived of the claim made by him, before the Insurance Company.  Except under Section 192, he has not committed any offence.  Negligence on his part, cannot be equated with mens rea. He did not obtain the Registration Certificate for his own detriment.  The insurance Company is not affected by the said negligence on his part.”

8.      This case is squarely covered by M/s Aroma Paints Ltd. Versus The New India Assurance Company Limited’ case (Supra). Hence, no case for interference in the impugned order is made out.

9.      In view of the above, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

10.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced: 08.06.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

CL