BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint Case No.204 of 2018.
Date of institution: 26.07.2018.
Date of decision:13.11.2019.
Babita Rani wife of Anil Kumar, resident of House No.246/11, Rabarian Mohalla, Kaithal, Tehsil and Distt. Kaithal.
…Complainant.
Versus
- Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd. Peninsula Business Park Tower A 55th Floor G.K.Marg Lower Parel Mumbai (Maharashtra).
- TATA AIG General Insurance Company Ltd., Unit No.810-816, 8th floor World Trade Tower, Sector-16, Noida (UP) through its Branch Manager.
- M/s. Bharat TVS Ambala Road, Kaithal through its proprietor/authorized signatory.
….Respondents.
Before: Sh. D.N.Arora, President.
Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.
Smt. Suman Rana, Member.
Present: Sh. H.S.Nain, Advocate, for the complainant.
Ops No.1 & 3 exparte.
Sh. Sudeep Malik, Advocate for the OP.No.2.
ORDER
D.N.ARORA, PRESIDENT
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that the complainant got insured his Jupiter Scootty bearing Temporary Registration No.HR99-AAE-5941 valid for the period w.e.f. 24.01.2017 to 23.01.2018. It is alleged that the said vehicle was stolen from the house of complainant on 29.06.2017 and an FIR bearing No.289 dt. 30.06.2017 was lodged in P.S.City Kaithal. Information regarding theft of vehicle was given to the Ops. It is further alleged that the police after investigation submitted untraced report to the Court of C.J.M. Kaithal on 08.02.2018. The complainant lodged the claim with the Ops and submitted all the necessary documents but the Ops did not settle the claim of complainant. So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed for acceptance of complaint. Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, the OP No.2 appeared before this Forum, whereas Ops No.1 & 3 did not appear. Op No.1 was proceeded against exparte vide order dt. 15.11.2018 and Op No.3 was proceeded against exparte vide order dt. 01.07.2019. Op No.2 contested the complaint by filing reply raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; jurisdiction; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum. As per version stated in the complaint, the vehicle of the complainant was insured with the answering Op w.e.f. 24.01.2017 to 23.01.2018 as per terms and conditions of insurance policy. The vehicle in question was purchased by the complainant on 24.01.2017 and the alleged theft took place on 29.06.2017. The temporary registration certificate issued at the time of purchase was valid only upto 23.02.2017, whereas even at the time of alleged theft on 29.06.2017 the vehicle was still un-registered which was in violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy. A letter dt. 28.03.2018/25.03.2018 was sent to insured seeking clarification but he failed to reply the same, thus the claim was repudiated on account of violation of policy condition No.8, Section 39 of Motor Vehicle Act; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops. On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. The complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C9 and thereafter, closed the evidence.
4. On the other hand, the Op No.2 tendered into evidence affidavits Ex.RW1/A & Ex.RW1/B and documents Annexure-R1 to Annexure-R4 and thereafter, closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.
6. Undisputedly, the complainant purchased a vehicle Jupiter Scootty for the sum of Rs.51,320/- from the Op No.3 as per Annexure-C4 and got insured the same bearing Temporary Registration No.HR99-AAE-5941 valid for the period w.e.f. 24.01.2017 to 23.01.2018 as per Annexure-C5. According to the complainant, the said vehicle was stolen from the house of complainant on 29.06.2017 and an FIR bearing No.289 dt. 30.06.2017 was lodged in P.S.City Kaithal. The grievance of the complainant is that the Ops repudiated the claim of complainant vide letter dt. 28.03.2018 Annexure-R4 wrongly and illegally.
7. We have considered the rival contentions of both the parties. It is clear that the vehicle in question was purchased by the complainant on 24.01.2017 and the temporary registration certificate issued at the time of purchase was valid only upto 23.02.2017 as is clear from Annexure-C1. It is also clear from the FIR that the alleged theft took place on 29.06.2017 and at the time of alleged theft on 29.06.2017 the vehicle was still un-registered which was in violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy. So, we are of the considered view that at the time of accident, the vehicle was not registered with the registration certificate even after the expiry of temporary registration. In this context, we can rely upon the authority reported as Narinder Singh Vs. NIA, 2014(4) CLT Vol. 64 page 1 decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court, wherein it has been held that Insurance claim (Vehicle)-Repudiated on the ground that the vehicle had not been registered even after the expiry of temporary registration-Vehicle met with an accident after expiry of temporary registration-Whether the appellant is not entitled to claim compensation for damages in respect of the vehicle when admittedly the vehicle was being driven on the date of accident without any valid registration?-Held-Yes-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-Appeal dismissed. In the present case, a temporary registration was granted in respect of the vehicle in question, which had expired on 23.02.2017 and the alleged accident took place on 29.06.2017 when the vehicle was without any registration as mentioned above. Nothing has been brought on record by the complainant to show that before or after 23.02.2017, when the period of temporary registration expired, the complainant, 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. Section 39 of MV Act is mentioned as under:-
“No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause a permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other places 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 carrier a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner.”
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. So, we are of the considered view that the Ops have rightly repudiated the claim of complainant on account of violation of policy condition No.8 and Section 39 of Motor Vehicle Act as per Annexure-R4. Hence, we find no deficiency in service on the part of Ops.
7. Thus, in view of above discussion, we find no merit in the present complaint and dismiss the same. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
Dt.:13.11.2019.
(D.N.Arora)
President.
(Suman Rana), (Rajbir Singh)
Member Member.
