BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.428 of 2016
Date of Instt. 04.10.2016
Date of Decision: 01.05.2018
Rimmi, aged 30 years s/o Sh. Krishan Lal, R/o Village Dyal Pur, District Kapurthala.
..........Complainant
Versus
1. Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited, having its head office at 15th Floor, Tower A, Peninsula Business Park, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Off Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013, through its CEO/MD/Principal Officer.
2. Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, 3rd Floor, Shanti Tower, SCO No.37, PUDA Complex, Opposite Tehsil Complex, Jalandhar-144001, through its Branch Manager.
….….. Opposite Parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)
Smt. Harvimal Dogra (Member)
Present: Sh. Anand Pandit, Adv and Sh. Hitesh Sharma, Adv Counsels for the Complainant.
Sh. AK Arora, Adv Counsel for the OP No.1 and 2.
Order
Karnail Singh (President)
1. This complaint is presented by the complainant, wherein alleged that the OPs are engaged in selling insurance policies throughout India and are having one of their branch office at Jalandhar i.e. OP No.2. The officials of the OPs approached the complainant to take a car policy from the OPs company and the complainant got allured by the talks of the officials of OPs and the complainant took a policy No.064001/0140176094/000000/00 of his vehicle make TATA Magic DSL BSIII bearing registration No.PB-09-X-2089 and the date of the registration of the vehicle was 29.05.2015 and the certificate of registration of the vehicle was issued by the competent authority. Copy of the policy and certificate of registration of the vehicle is attached herewith for kind perusal of this Forum. The complainant had paid the requisite premium of the policy and had provided the documents required by the OPs for getting the vehicle of the complainant insured. The policy commenced from 11.03.2015 and was valid upto 10.03.2016 midnight. The insurance was issued in the name of the complainant only i.e. Rimmi.
2. That the driver namely Balwinder Singh son of Gian Singh, resident of Village Fattu Chakk, District Kapurthala was driving the vehicle in question bearing temporary registration No.PB-08-CB-2407, which is in the name of the complainant and the said vehicle met with an accident on 02.04.2015 in the area falling within the jurisdiction of PS Dhilwan, and the driver of the complainant got entered the DDR No.9 dated 02.04.2015 u/s 427 IPC with the PS Dhilwan, which proves the fact that the vehicle in question met with an accident. After getting the DDR registered in respect of the car in question, which was met with an accident, sent a car for repair at M/s Shankar Automobiles, Nakodar. The complainant applied for the insurance claim of the vehicle with the OPs on 17.04.2015 and the surveyor of the OPs namely Sh. Sanjiv Khanna, inspected the vehicle in question on 18.04.2015. The complainant also provided the copy of the Insurance and the copy of DDR for reference of the OPs and requested the OPs to disburse the claim amount to the complainant. The complainant kept on approaching the OPs to know about the fate of his claim, but the officials of OPs did not pay any heed to the genuine request of the complainant and kept on putting off the matter for the reasons best known to them. The OPs used to call the complainant every now and then and the complainant used to sit in the office of OP No.2 for hours without any fruitful result.
3. That the OPs on 19.10.2015 repudiated the claim of the complainant on the sole ground that the temporary certificate of Registration of the vehicle in question had expired on 06.11.2014 before the accident and as per the registration certificate of the vehicle, the same was registered on 29.05.2015 i.e. after the accident and the OPs took into consideration the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 while repudiating the claim of the complainant and stated that the OPs showed the inability to accept any liability for the above accident. The action of the OPs in repudiating the claim of the complainant is totally illegal, void and against the principles of natural justice on the following grounds:-
A). That the action of the OPs in repudiating the claim of the complainant is totally void on the short ground that the above said reason for repudiating the claim was never the term and condition of the OPs while issuing the insurance policy in respect of the vehicle in question which had met with an accident, as such, there was no violation of any terms and conditions of the insurance policy by the complainant.
B). That the repudiation of the claim of the complainant reflects sheer non-application of mind to the facts of the case, as such, the repudiation letter dated 19.10.2015 is required to be ignored. To make it more clear it is stated here that the non-registration of the vehicle in question in any way contributed to the accident and non-registration of the vehicle has got no nexus with the accident in question, as such, the repudiation of claim by the OPs is totally illegal. The complainant had applied for the registration certificate of the vehicle with late fees. Moreover, as per the law settled by the Hon'ble State Commission, it has been held that mere non-registration of vehicle after insuring the same, cannot be a ground of repudiation of a genuine claim under policy, as such, the OPs have acted totally against the settled law, which is totally void and not sustainable in the eyes of law.
C). That the repudiation of the claim of the complainant by the OPs, is unfair trade practice.
D). That the OPs estopped from repudiating the claim of the complainant by their own act and conduct as stated herein before.
4. The act of the OPs of foreclosing policy of the complainant illegally and denying the complainant from the benefits of the policy and illegally using the money of the complainant, which the complainant deposited with the OPs as a premium of the policy has caused mental harassment to the complainant. Moreover, this wrongful and unlawful act of the OPs, of foreclosing the policy of the complainant illegally and against the terms and conditions of the policy amounts to unfair trade practices as well as deficiency in services on the part of the OPs and accordingly, this complaint filed with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and repudiation letter dated 19.10.2015 may be declared as null and void and OPs be directed to disburse the claim amount to the complainant, which is approximately Rs.3,40,000/- and further OPs be directed to pay compensation for mental tension and agony to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.22,000/-.
5. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs and accordingly, both the OPs appeared and filed their joint reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and hence, the present complaint is not maintainable and further averred that immediately on the receipt of information qua the loss caused to the vehicle in question in the alleged accident and independent IRDA licensed surveyor, Mr. Sanjiv Khanna was appointed to inspect the vehicle and assess the loss, who submitted his survey report dated 10.07.2015 with the company assessing loss to the tune of Rs.3,75,351/-. It is further averred that after receipt of the survey report along with documents submitted by the complainant, following observations were made as under:-
A). The insured vehicle was used without RC, Permit and Fitness Certificate at the time of accident.
B). The temporary certificate of registration issued in respect of the vehicle in question had expired on 06.11.2014, the accident has occurred on 01.04.2015.
C). As per registration certificate, the vehicle was registered on 29.05.2015 i.e. after the date of accident.
As per Section 39 of the Motor Vehicle Act, the complainant cannot allow to drive the car at any public place and as such, there is a violation of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicle Act and thus, complainant is not entitled for the relief claimed. Even the complainant has suppressed the material facts from the Forum, therefore, he is not entitled. On merits, the factum in regard to purchase of the insurance policy by the complainant, is not denied, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly prayed that the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same may be dismissed.
6. In order to prove the case of the complainant, complainant himself tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.CA alongwith some documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C10 and closed the evidence.
7. Similarly, counsel for the OP No.1 and 2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Modh. Azhar Wasi as Ex.OA and affidavit of Sh. Sanjiv Khanna, Surveyor as Ex.OB alongwith some documents Ex.O-1 to Ex.O-9 and closed the evidence.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also gone through the case file very minutely.
9. In this complaint, the complainant alleged that the official of the OP persuaded the complainant to purchase insurance of the car and accordingly, the complainant took a policy No.064001/0140176094/000000/00 of his vehicle make TATA Magic DSL BSIII bearing registration No.PB-09-X-2089 and the date of the registration of the vehicle was 29.05.2015 and registration of the vehicle was issued by the competent authority. The insurance policy commenced from 11.03.2015 to 10.03.2016 midnight. The driver of the complainant, namely Balwinder Singh son of Gian Singh was driving the vehicle in question bearing temporary registration No.PB-08-CB-2407, which is in the name of the complainant, but all of sudden, the vehicle met with an accident on 02.04.2015 in the area of P.S. Dhilwan, District Kapurthala and accordingly, a DDR was got registered on 02.04.2015, under Section 427 IPC, PS Dhilwan having a DDR No.9 and thereafter, the complainant sent his car at workshop M/s Shankar Automobiles, Nakodar and thereafter, the complainant submitted insurance claim in regard to damage to the car, to the OP on 17.04.2015 and accordingly, Surveyor was appointed by the OP, who inspected the vehicle on 18.04.2015, but thereafter, the insurance claim of the complainant was repudiated by the OP on 19.10.2015 on the soil ground that the temporary registration certificate of the vehicle had expired on 06.11.2014 before the accident, as per the registration certificate of the vehicle, the same was registered on 29.05.2015 i.e. after the accident and the OP took into consideration the provision of Motor Vehicle Act while repudiating the claim of the complainant, but the OP repudiated the claim of the complainant on a flimsy ground, which is illegal, void and against the principle of natural justice. It is further alleged by the learned counsel for the complainant that the non registration of the vehicle in question in any way has no contribution to the accident and even non registration of the vehicle has got no nexus with the accident in question and as such, the repudiation of the claim by the OP is totally illegal and moreover, the complainant had applied for the registration certificate of the vehicle with late fee and as per the settled law, mere non registration of the vehicle after insurance the same, cannot be a ground of repudiation of genuine claim under policy and as such, the act of the OP is totally void and not sustainable in the eyes of law. In support of above, counsel for the complainant made reliance upon judgment of Hon'ble State Commission Punjab, cited in 2012 (1) CPJ 207, titled as “Bharti Axa General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Venus”.
10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP submitted that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP because the complainant was not having a registration certificate of the vehicle at the time of alleged accident i.e. 02.04.2015, admittedly, the temporary RC of the vehicle in question was expired on 06.11.2014, whereas the accident took place on 02.04.2015 and registration certificate was issued in the name of the complainant on 29.05.2015 as reported by the Surveyor after investigation, in his report Ex.O-4, but this date of registration of certificate is not controverted by the complainant and moreover, the complainant himself admitted that he deposited the late fee for transfer of the vehicle means the complainant has not applied for permanent registration certificate, prior to expiry of the temporary registration and as such, it is established that on the day of accident, the vehicle in question was not having either temporary registration or permanent registration, if so then, as per settled law, the complainant is not entitled for the insurance claim and in support of this observation, we like to refer a pronouncement of Hon'ble Apex Court, cited in 2014(3) Apex Court Judgments Supreme Court 218, titled as “Narinder Singh Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd and Others”, wherein his Lordship held as under:-
“Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 21(b) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 166 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 39 and 43, purchase of new vehicle, temporary registration expired on 11.01.2006, accident took place on 02.02.2006, when the vehicle was without any registration, insurance also expired on 11.01.2006, Insurance Company not liable”.
On the same point, we like to further referred an other pronouncement of Hon'ble National Commission, cited in 2014(4) CPR 699 NC, titled as “Bhagwat Vs. Branch Manager United India Assurance Company Ltd.”. Further, the ruling referred by learned counsel for the complainant (Supra) 2012 (1) CPJ 207 of our State Commission is not helpful to the complainant in this case because the OP has referred a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, which will prevail upon all other judgments.
11. If we see the case of the complainant in the light of above judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court and Hon'ble National Commission, then we can say without any hesitation that the claim of the complainant has been rightly repudiated by the Insurance Company and complaint of the complainant is without merits and accordingly, the same is dismissed with no order of cost. Parties will bear their own cost. The complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
12. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Harvimal Dogra Karnail Singh
01.05.2018 Member President
