Ld Advocate for the parties are present. Judgement is ready and delivered in open Commission in 9 pages 5 separate sheet of papers.

BY - SRI.SAURAV CHANDRA, MEMBER

1. Brief facts of the Complaint Case are that the Complainant has purchased Two Wheeler Vehicle from the Show Room of Opposite Party No.2 under Finance of Opposite Party No.3 and Insured with the Opposite Party No.1 vide a Vehicle Insurance Policy No.334030/31/21/003090 for the period 11.03.2021 to 10.03.2022 (Midnight) against his New Motor Bike # FZ5V3, Engine # G3N5E0106599 & Chassis # MEIRG6621M0106729.

2. On 11.03.2021 around 10:30 to 11:30PM near Bamunia Poll under Egra Police Station a mob suddenly attacked and fired upon the vehicle for which it is destroyed.

3. On 13.03.2021 the Complainantreport the said incident by lodging an FIR # 149/21 before the Egra Police Station.

4. The incident has also duly reported to the Ops with the copy of FIR and other documents towards taking necessary steps as well as insurance claim against the said damaged vehicle.

5. Accordingly, the Op No.1 appointed one Surveyor and Loss Assessor against Claim No.10000/31/21/N/0048173, who directed to submit the estimate against which the Op No.2 issued Total Estimation of Rs.57,380.00 vide No(s).1941, 1942 and 1943; all dated: 13.04.2021 amounting to Rs.29,699.00, Rs.22,258.00 and Rs.5,423.00 respectively.

6. Thereafter, since 11.03.2021 the Complainant visited the office of the Ops several times but, they remain silence for which he is suffering till now due to the negligence of the Op No.1 and 2. The Complainant claimed the estimated amount from the Op No.1 through the Op No.2 and the said vehicle is in the custody of Op No.2 for repairing as per the Receipt being No.52153, dated: 07.04.2021 issued by the Op No.2 (filed by the Complainant as per Firisti dated: 23.02.2024)

7. On 13.04.2021, the Op No.1 repudiated the claim by mentioning that the Vehicle was not registered at the time of loss which was necessary u/s 39, 43, 66, 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as well as a fundamental breach of the Terms & Conditions of the Policy Contract.

8. The Complainant further states, the Op No.2 received the Insurance Premium and Registration Feefrom the Complainant and against which the Op No.1 issued the Insurance Policy for the period 11.03.2021 to 10.03.2022 (Midnight) after proper verification with full satisfaction and alsoduly reimbursed the said Insurance Premium from Op No.2. The Vehicle Registration has done by the RTO, Tamluk in which Purchase Date is wrongly mentioned as13.03.2021 as per the wrong information provided by Op No.2 who being a motor dealer and is liable for registration.The Op No.3is a bank which financed the Complainant to purchase the Vehicle under hypothecation.

9. The cause of action of this case arose on 11.03.2021 and 13.04.2021.

The Complainant, therefore, prays for:-

1. To direct the Op No.1 and 2, jointly and severally to release the Claim of Rs.57,380.00 towards an Estimated Cost of Repairing or Rs.1,26,125.00 for New Vehicle along with Other Charges.

2. To pay Compensation of Rs.50,000.00 towards harassment, mental pain and agony.

3. To pay a Litigation Cost of Rs.10,000.00 to the Complainant for conducting the case.

4. Any other reliefs.

10. Notices were duly served upon the Ops. The Ops appeared before this Commission through their Ld. Advocates and contested the case by filing Written Versions, Evidence-in-Chief on Affidavits, Questionnaire, Reply and Written Notes of Arguments against the Complainant.

11. While resisting the claim of the Complainant, the Op No.1 in its’ Para wise comments stated inter alia that this complaint is not maintainable in its present form and in law because the Complainant has initiated the claim on 12.03.2021 whereas the accident occurred at the Godown-cum-Shop on 11.03.2021 and lodged the FIR No.149/21 at Egra Police Station with a delay on 13.03.2021 which violates the Terms & Conditions of the policy.Therefore, the said claim was rejected on the ground of misrepresentation as follows:-

“The purchase Invoice found dated: 27.01.2021, Delivery Challan found 22.01.2021 whereas the Policy issued on 11.03.2021. The loss also occurred on 11.03.2021. The Road Tax paid & applied for Registration on 13.03.2021. Hence, Vehicle was not registered at the time of loss. The Consumers Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21(b) – The Motor vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 39, 43, 66, 192 – Insurance – Necessarily Registration – Temporary Registration – Using a vehicle on the public road without any registration is not only an offence punishable u/s 192 of the M.V Act but, also a fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of policy contract. Moreover insured tried to hide the material fact hence violation of the principle of utmost good faith. In view of the fact, the claim is not admissible.”

12. The Op No.2 in its’ Para wise comments stated inter alia that this complaint is not maintainable in its present form and in law because the Complainantdid not make any claim and did not demand any relief against them. The Complainant came to the Op No.2 on 22.01.2021 to purchase the said Motor Cycle, the value of which is Rs.1,04,700.00 out of which Rs.48,900.00 paid in Cash and the balance amount Financed by the Op No.3 on 28.01.2021. Due to COVID-19 pandemic, the Op No.2applied for registration before the RTA, Tamluk on 13.03.2021 and received the Registration Certificate on 20.04.2021 but, the same has not collected by the Complainantas yet even after the intimation served.

13. The Op No.3 in its’ Para wise comments stated inter alia that this complaint is not maintainable in its present form and in law because they had only financed a sum of Rs.86,186.00 on the basis of Loan Application duly applied by the Complainant and begs to pass an order directing the Complainant or Op No.1 & 2 to repay the entire due against Loan A/c No.116529353.

14. Under the above circumstances, the Op No.1, 2 and 3 all has prayed for dismissal of the present case with costs.

15. Points for determination are:

1. Is the case maintainable in its present form and in law?
2.  Is the Complainant entitled to the relief(s) as sought for?

16. Decision with reasons

1. Both the points I and II, being inter related to each other, are taken up together for discussion for sake of brevity and convenience.

2. We have carefully perused the Petition of the Complainant alongwith all papers and other documents.

17. Having regards had to the facts and circumstances of the case in the light of evidence, it is evident that there is no dispute that Complainant is a consumer having grievances against the Ops, as such the case is maintainable in its present form and in law.

18. In the instant case, the Complainant submitted a List of Documents dated: 13.04.2021 containing the copy of Road Challan dated: 22.01.2021, Tax Invoice dated: 27.01.2021, Two Wheeler Loan Application Form dated: 12.01.2021, Loan Account Statementfor the period 22.01.2021 to 20.04.2021 disbursed on 28.01.2021, EMI Cash Payment SMS dated: 03.09.2021,Claim Number and Surveyor Details, Vehicle Insurance Policy for the period 11.03.2021 to 10.03.2022 (Midnight), Disclaimer for Registration, Payment Receipt dated: 20.04.2021, FIR dated: 13.03.2021, Letter dated: 13.03.2021, Seizure List dated: 13.03.2021, Estimate dated: 13.04.2021, Repudiate Letter dated: 13.04.2021, Vehicle Acknowledgment dated: 07.04.2021. The Op No.3 has also submitted the copy of Two Wheeler Loan Application Consent Form and a Loan A/c Statement for the period 22.01.2020 to 08.10.2021.

19. From the above submitted documents, it is carefully observed that the Challan date i.e. 22.01.2021 is prior to the Invoice date i.e. 27.01.2021,Application for Registration made on 13.03.2021 and Insurance Policy issued on 11.03.2021. From the aforesaid evidences it is clearly established, the vehicle has been delivered to the Complainant by the Op No.2 without providing the Registration Certificate.

20. Authorized Dealers are the “Deemed Owners” of the vehicle, which they have in possession until sold/transferred to the customer/purchaser.The vehicle is marketed through a dealer who is an in-charge of updating the new owner’s information in RTA. When a dealer receives a vehicle for resale, to be registered for sale at the RTA. The dealer will then be solely liable for any untoward incident, including theft and other crimes from it’s custody. The authorized dealer of registered vehicles will not use them on public roads except for trial runs for potential buyers, for maintenance and painting. They must electronically notify the inventory record in Form-29E on the online portal.Authorized dealers can obtainRegistration Certificates, renew Registration Certificates, obtain Fitness Certificates, Duplicate Registration Certificates and obtain No-Objection Certificates for transfer of ownership. They are also required to keep an electronic vehicle trip log detailing the trips taken, their purpose, driver, time and mileage.The authorized dealer will also have to maintain a trip register of each vehicle in their possession and maintain the details.

21. Therefore, according to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 it is clear that the Authorised Dealer can’t handover the vehicle to the customer/purchaser without obtaining the Registration Certificate from RTA. But, from the documentary evidence it is established that the Op No.2 being an Authorised Dealer fails to do so by issuing Road Challan on 22.01.2021 to the Complainant for delivery without obtaining the Online Registration Certificate from the RTA which amounts to Gross Deficiency in Service.

22. On the other hand, the Op No.1 being an Insurance Company issued a Vehicle Insurance Policy to the Complainant on 11.03.2021 after collecting the Premium of Rs.5,724.00 which means during selling the Policy, the Op No.1 intentionally put the Date of Registration/Delivery in the Insurance Policy as 11.03.2021 with a motive to sale the policy only even after proper scrutiny and verification of documents by ignoring the discrepancy of subsequent Application date for Registration on 13.03.2021. When the Complainant lodged claimed the Op No.1 openedits eye by revealing andraising all disputesin the dates of Challan, Invoice and Application for Registration in comparison with the Insurance Policy dated: 11.03.2021 which is nothing but an Unfair Trade Practice with an ulterior motive to quash the genuine accident claim occurred on 11.03.2021 during the valid Policy periodfrom 11.03.2021 to 10.03.2022 (Midnight).

23. Moreover, the Op No.1in the Paragraph No.4 of Written Version mentioned about the occurrence of accident at the Godown –cum – Shop by quoting Section 192 of the Motors Vehicle Act, 1988in the Repudiation Letter which are contradictory to each other. Because, according to the claim of Op No.1, if the occurrence of accident at the Godown – cum – Shop then how the question of driving the vehicle without registration will arise?

Section 192 - Using Vehicle Without Registration–(1) Whoever 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: Provided that the court may, for reasons to be recorded, impose a lesser punishment.

24. It is also observed by this Commission that there is a motive for unlawful gain or mutual understanding between the Op No.1 and 2 by which they exchanged documents with each other and the Op No.1 issued Insurance Policy against Premium by handed over the same to the Op No.2 with mentioning the Date of Registration as 11.03.2021, which the Op No.2 accepted without raising any objection.

25. Now, coming to the matter of reliefs, the Op No.1 and 2 can’t get absolved from the mischief of negligence, harassment, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The Op No.1 is solely liable to reimburse the Claim amount of Rs.57,380.00 against production/submission of original bills to the Complainant within 45 days from the date of this order in default the Op No.1 will have to pay simple interest @8% per annum in addition to the said amount for non-compliance from the date of filing of this case till actual payment. The Op No.2 will be liable to return the said vehicle as it is basis from its’ custody. Apart from that, the Op No.1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.10,000.00 towards Compensation and Rs.5,000.00 as Litigation Costs to the Complainant within 30 days from the date of this order.

26. Both the points are decided accordingly. Thus, the complaint case fully succeeds.

Hence, it is

        O R D E R E D

That the CC-85 of 2021 be and the same is allowed on contest against Op No.1 and 2 and dismissed against Op No.3.

The Op No.1 is hereby directed to reimburse the Claim amount upon production/submission of Original Bills amounting toRs.57,380.00 (Maximum) to the Complainant within 45 days from the date of this order in default the Op No.1 will have to pay simple interest @8% per annum in addition to the said amount for non-compliance from the date of filing of this case till actual payment.The Op No.2 is directed to return the said vehicle as it is basis from its’ custody. TheOp No.1 & 2 are hereby directed to pay jointly and severally a sum of Rs.10,000.00 towards Compensation and Rs.5,000.00 as Litigation Costs to the Complainant within 30 days from the date of this order.

The Complainant would be at liberty to put the order into execution u/s 71 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and to initiate a proceeding u/s 72 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Let a copy of this judgment be provided to the parties free of cost. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.

File be consigned to record section along with a copy of this   judgment.