The Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., Raichur.
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
ORDER
This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of Consumer Protection Act by the complainant Amaregouda against Branch Manager National Insurance Company Ltd., Raichur. The brief facts of the complaint are as under: Late Sharanagouda the father of the complainant had purchased a Hero-Honda (Splendor Plus) Motor Cycle on 26-05-06 bearing its Chasis No. 06D16C38336 and Engine No. 06D15M38268. The Respondents had issued Insurance Policy Package for the vehicle and the vehicle was registered as temporally bearing Temporary Registration No. 36/TR/Q-5345. On 17-06-06 Late Sharanagouda being the owner-cum-driver of the said vehicle while proceedings towards Raichur has caused an accident and died in the hospital. The Respondent had issued the Insurance Policy with cover risk of Personal Accident Package claim to the owner-cum-driver for Rs. 1,00,000/- and vehicle damaged for Rs. 6,000/-. The complainant is the son & legal heir and successor to the estate and property of his father deceased Sharanagouda so he is entitled to claim the policy benefit issued by the Respondent. After the said accident this complainant has approached the Respondent several times to claim Personal Accident Death claim benefits of his late father and the vehicle damages by submitting Claim Forms along with necessary documents. The Respondent has repudiated his claim on the ground that vehicle in-question was not validly registered on the date of accident. In-fact on the date of accident, the registration of the vehicle was in-force. The Respondent has caused the deficiency in service by repudiating his claim. The complainant has suffered both mentally as well as financially. Hence for all these reasons he has sought for Rs. 1,00,000/- towards Personal Accident death claim benefit, Rs. 6,000/- towards vehicle damages expenses, Rs. 44,000/- towards compensation and cost totaling to Rs. 1,50,000/-. 2. The Respondent Insurance Company appeared through Advocate and filed written version contending that the validity period of Temporary Registration of the vehicle was already expired on 02-06-06 and the accident took place on 17-06-06. So the temporary registration of vehicle was not at all in-force on the date of accident thereby deceased had violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and also violated Rules & Regulations of M.V. Act. Hence this Respondent is not liable to pay compensation. The death of Sharanagouda is not an accidental death but it is natural death. So the Respondent is not liable to pay Personal Accident Claim or vehicle damages and compensation as sought for. This Respondent has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant, as the Temporary Registration of vehicle was not in-force on the date of accident. The Xerox copies of certificate of registration, fitness certificate of the vehicle in-respect of vehicle of deceased Sharanagouda filed by the complainant clearly shows that the certificate of Registration and fitness certificate was issued by the Competent Authority as on 22-11-06 whereas the date of death of Sharanagouda as per complaint of the complainant is on 17-06-06. So the Registration Certificate and fitness certificate is obtained after the death of Sharanagouda. The Respondents has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant. So there is no deficiency in service and Respondent is not liable to pay any compensation. Hence for all these reasons the Respondents has sought for dismissal of the complaint. 3. During the course of enquiry the complainant has filed sworn affidavit by way of examination-in-chief as PW-1 and has filed sworn-affidavit of one Afzal Motor Cycle Mechanic, Raichur in-support of his evidence as PW-2 and has got marked [13] documents at Ex.P-1 to P-13. The Respondents in-rebuttal has filed sworn-affidavit of its Administrative Officer by way of evidence as RW-1 and sworn affidavit of its Branch Manager as RW-2 and got marked one document at Ex.R-1. 4. Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the records. The following points arise for our consideration and determination:- 1. Whether the complainant proves deficiency in service in not settling his claim, as alleged.? 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for? 5. Our finding on the above points are as under:- 1. In the affirmative. 2. As per final order for the following. REASONS POINT NO.1:- 6. There is no dispute that late Sharanagouda the father of the complainant had purchased Hero-Honda (Splendor Plus) Motor on 26-05-06 bearing Chasis No. 06D16C38336 and Engine No. 06D15M38268 and the Respondents has issued Insurance Policy Package for the above said vehicle and the vehicle was temporarily registered and given temporary registration bearing No. KA-36/TR/Q-5345. It is the further case of the complainant that on 17-06-06 when his late father being owner-cum-driver of the said vehicle was proceedings towards Raichur he caused an accident and died in the hospital. The Respondents issued the vehicle Insurance Policy with cover risk of Personal Accident Package Claim to the owner cum driver of Rs. 1,00,000/- and vehicle damage for Rs. 6,000/-. The complainant being the son of legal heir and successor to the estate and property of his late father Sharanagouda submitted Claim Form for Personal Accident Death Claim benefit of his father and the vehicle damage but the Respondents had repudiated his claim on the ground that the vehicle was not validly registered on the date of accident. 7. The complainant has produced [13] documents namely; copy of Insurance Policy of the motor cycle at Ex.P-1, Copy of permanent certificate of registration at E.P-2, Copy of Repudiation Letter at Ex.P-3, Particulars of Temporarily registration certificate of the vehicle issued by RTO Raichur at Ex.P-4, Certified copy of FIR with police complaint at Ex.P-5, Certified copy of charge-sheet with enclosure at Ex.P-6, Certified copy of spot panchanama at E.P-7, Certified copy of Motor Vehicle Accident Report at Ex.P-8, Post Mortem Report at Ex.P-9, Original Tax Invoice (Cash Credit Bill) at Ex.P-10, Original driving licence of Sharanagouda owner-driver at Ex.P-11, Second Year PUC Certificate of complainant-Amaregouda issued by the Joint Director of Pre-University Education, Bangalore issued by Tagore Memorial Pre-University College, Raichur at Ex.P-12, Identity Card issued (Election Commission of India) in-respect of complainant Amaregouda at Ex.P-13. Ex.P-12 & Ex.P-13 shows late Sharanagouda as the late father of complainant Amaregouda. The temporarily registration certificate at Ex.P-11 shows that Temporary Registration Certificate was issued for (7) days from 27-05-06 to 02-06-06 by the RTO Raichur. The Permanent Registration Certificate of the Motor Vehicle at Ex.P-2 shows it is valid for the period from 22-11-06 to 22-11-2021 The FIR, Charge-sheet and Post Mortem Report shows that Sharanagouda caused accident and died in the accident. 8. Ex.P-3 is the Repudiation Letter dt. 16-11-06 addressed to the complainant by the Branch Manager of Respondent Company. This Ex.P-3 reads thus:- Dear Sir, Reg: Accidental Claim on your vehicle KA-36/TR/Q-5345 Date of Accident: 17-08-2006. **** We regret to inform you that the subject claim cannot be admitted and is REPUDIATED as the vehicle is not validly Registered on the Date of Accident. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, For NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., Sd/- (N.VASUDEVAN) BRANCH MANAGER. 9. As stated earlier there is no dispute that Temporary Registration of the vehicle was to expire on 02-06-06 and the vehicle was not having valid Registration certificate on the date of accident which took place on 17-06-06 and the Permanent Registration Certificate at Ex.P-2 was issued with effect from 22-11-06 to 21-11-2021. So on the date of accident the Temporary Registration Certificate of the vehicle was already expired and the vehicle was not Registered. The learned counsel for complainant argued that the defences open to the Respondent Insurance Company is only as per section 149(2) of Motor Vehicle Act and the non-registration of the vehicle being not enumerated U/s. 149(2) of Act, the Respondent is not entitled to repudiate his claim on the ground of non-registration of the vehicle on the date of accident and so the Insurance Company is liable to the claim of the complainant. In-support of his argument the L.C. has relied on the decision rendered by Honble President of our State Commission (as Honble Judge High Court of Karnataka,) reported in 2001 ACJ Page 1410 Head Note which reads as under: Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 Sections 149 (2) and 39__ Motor Insurance__Non-registration of vehicle__Defences available to insurance company__Section 39 provides that no person shall drive any motor vehicle in any public place unless the vehicle is registered__ Tribunal exempted the insurance company from its liability as the offending vehicle was not registered on the date of accident__ Whether the insurance company is exempted from its liability__ Held: no; non-registration of the vehicle is not one of the defences available under section 149(2).. 10. We have sincerely gone through the decision especially paras 7 to 8 wherein it is observed by referring to section 149 (2) and (7) of M.V. Act, that the grounds of defences have been specified in section 149 (2) of the Act and no other ground of defence can be added to the said decision. The decision open to the Insurance Company are only those mentioned U/s. 149(2) of M.V. Act. The non-registration of the vehicle is not one of the defences enumerated U/s. 149(2) of the Act. Therefore the Insurance Company is not entitled to take defence of the non-registration of vehicle on the date of accident. Under Sub-section (7) of section 149 of the Act, the Insurance Company is not entitled to avoid its liability to any person entitled to the benefit of any judgement and awarded referred to in Sub-section (1) other-wise than in the manner provided for in Sub section-2 of section 149 of Act Therefore the Tribunal was not right in absolving the liability of the Insurance Company on the ground that there was no registration of the vehicle as it falls outside the scope of section 149(2) of the Act. 11. Bearing-in-mind the principles laid-down in the above said rulings we hold that the principles laid-down are aptly applicable to the present case to hold that the Insurance Company is not entitled to raise the defences of non-registration of the vehicle on the date of the accident as it falls outside the scope of section 149 (2) of M.V. Act. So the Repudiation of the claim of the complainant on the very ground of non-registration of the vehicle on the date of the accident, is not legal & justified and consequently it amounts to deficiency in service. Hence we hold that the complainant has proved deficiency in service and so Point No-1 is answered in the affirmative. POINT NO.2:- 12. The complainant has sought for payment of Personal Accident Death claim of Rs. 1,00,000/- for the death of father of the complainant and Rs. 6,000/- for vehicle damage and Rs. 44,000/- as compensation with cost totaling to Rs. 1,50,000/- with interest at 24% p.a. from the date of accident. So far as payment of Personal Accident Death Claim of Rs. 1,00,000/- is concerned, the Respondents have not disputed the vehicle insurance policy with cover risk of Personal Accident Package Claim to the owner-cum-driver of the vehicle and the insurance policy at Ex.P-1/Ex.R-1 was inforce at the time of accident of the vehicle. Ex.P-1/Ex.R-1 the vehicle insurance policy shows the cover risk of (PA) to the owner-cum-driver of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Hence we hold that the complainant being the son of deceased policyholder is entitled to Rs. 1,00,000/-. So far as Rs. 6,000/- towards vehicle damage is concerned, the complainant has produced Cash Credit Bill for Rs. 6,165/- issued by M/S Balaji Automobiles Sath Kacheri Road, Raichur at Ex.P-10 party property damage of Rs. 6,000/- there is no whisper either in the complaint or in his evidence-affidavit regarding damage caused to the vehicle and got it repaired through Balaji Automobiles Raichur. What is stated in the complaint and affidavit is that as per the vehicle insurance policy he is entitled for Personal Accident Package Claim to the owner-cum-driver of Rs. 1,00,000/- and vehicle damage for Rs. 6,000/-. The insurance policy Ex.P-1/Ex.R-1 shows the risk for the third party property damage at Rs. 6,000/-. Further the Motor Vehicle Inspection Report of MVI at Ex.P-8 shows No visible damages to the vehicle. So viewed from any angle the complainant is not entitled to this claim of Rs. 6,000/-. So far as claim of Rs. 44,000/- as compensation with cost and interest at 24% p.a. is concerned, the complainant has not shown and substantiated for entitlement of compensation of Rs. 44,000/- especially when the benefit of Personal Accident Death Claim has been allowed. Hence having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is a fit case to award compensation of Rs. 2,000/- including cost of litigation. In this view of the matter we pass the following order: ORDER The complaint of the complainant is allowed in part. The Respondents Insurance Company shall pay Personal Accident Death Claim of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the complainant along with Rs. 2,000/- as compensation including cost of litigation. The Respondent shall comply this order within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Office to furnish certified copy of this order to both the parties forth with free of cost. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 09-08-07) Sd/- Sri. N.H. Savalagi, President, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri. Vishwanath Yekkelli, I/c. Member, District Forum-Raichur
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
