Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/128/2020

Malkhan - Complainant(s)

Versus

The CMPL Motors Private LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

Daman Dhir

24 Oct 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/128/2020
Date of Institution	:	19/02/2020
Date of Decision	:	24/10/2024

 

 

Malkhan son of Sh. Jhabbar Singh, Aged about 46 years, resident of H.No.6550-B, Sector 56, Palsoura, Chandigarh.

                                ...  Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     The CMPL Motors Private Limited, an authorised dealer of Tata Motors Limited, having their office at Plot No.52, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh through its Director/ Managing Director.

2.     Tata AIG Insurance, 301-308, Third Floor, Aggarwal Prestige Mall, Plot No.2, Road No. 44, Near M2K Cinema Rani Bagh, Pitampura, New Delhi-110024, IRDA Registration No.108, through its General Manager.

3.     Tata AIG, General Insurance Company Limited, Registered Office Penninsula Business Park, Tower-A, 15th Floor, G.K. Maru, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 through its General Manager.

…. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:
	SHRI AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU	PRESIDENT
	SHRI BRIJ MOHAN SHARMA	MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY:
	Sh. Manoj Kumar, Advocate, Proxy for Sh.Vipin Kumar, Counsel for complainant
	Sh. Gaurav Kant Goyal, Counsel for OP-1
	Sh. Sahil Abhi, Counsel for OPs 2 & 3

       

ORDER BY AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU, M.A.(Eng.),LLM,PRESIDENT

1.        The complainant has filed the present consumer complaint alleging that he had purchased a goods carrier namely ‘TATA Super Ace Mint’ from OP-3 vide invoice dated 10.11.2015 (Annexure C-1) and had also availed credit facility of ₹4,62,500/- from Tata Motor Finance Limited, Chandigarh.    The said vehicle was insured with OP-1 w.e.f. 10.11.2015 to 9.11.2016.  On the evening of 7.4.2017, after transporting certain goods the vehicle was parked at glass godown at Barwala and on the next morning the complainant was astonished to see the same missing.  Thereafter the complainant lodged complaint with the police station, Chandimandir, Panchkula, Haryana and FIR No.0109 dated 12.4.2017 was registered.  Till the date of theft the vehicle was not registered with the Transport Registering Authorities and the same was being plied under temporary registration No. Thereafter the complainant lodged insurance claim and submitted all the documents as desired by the OP/insurer but he was astonished that vide ante dated letter dated 17.2.2018 (Annexure C-7) OP had repudiated the claim. The complainant served the OP with legal notice dated 14.10.2019 requesting therein for reimbursement of his claim but with no success. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, complainant has filed the instant consumer complaint seeking reimbursement of the claim alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses.
2.        In its written version OP-1 admitted that it had sold the vehicle in question to the complainant.  However, it is averred that the complainant has no cause of action qua the answering OP and the claim of the complainant regarding theft of the vehicle in question has to be considered/decided by the insurance company/OPs  2 & 3 and not by OP-1.  It is denied any claim was submitted by the complainant with it.  The remaining allegations have been denied being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, OP-1 prayed for dismissal of the consumer complaint.
3.        In their written version OPs 2 & 3 admitted that the vehicle in question was insured with them w.e.f. 10.11.2016 to 9.11.2017 and also that the complainant lodged claim with them.  It is averred that the vehicle in question was not registered with the authority till the date of its theft. It is denied that the vehicle was being plied on temporary registration as the same was purchased on 10.11.2015 and the temporary registration had evidently expired prior to the date of theft.  However, it is averred that the alleged theft had taken place on 7.4.2017 and the same was reported to the OPs on 28.7.2017 i.e. after inordinate delay of 112 days. Thereafter the OPs deputed independent investigator to investigate the claim who submitted his report dated 10.9.2017 and on the basis of the same the OPs called upon the complainant vide letter dated 6.12.2017 to show cause why his claim should not be repudiated.  When no reply was received to the said letter from the complainant, OPs finally repudiated the claim vide letter dated 17.2.2018 on the ground of violation of the terms and conditions of the policy and the Motor Vehicles Act. The remaining allegations have been denied being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, OPs 2 & 3 prayed for dismissal of the consumer complaint.
4.        The complainant chose not to file replication. 
5.        The parties filed their respective affidavits and documents in support of their case.
6.        We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents on record, including written arguments.
7.        It is observed from the record that the OPs had primarily repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that the vehicle in question was being used without any registration number at the time of its theft. Hence, the core question for determination before us is if the vehicle in question, at the time of its theft, was having registration number, temporary or permanent, or not?
8.        It is the own admitted case of the complainant that the vehicle in question had not been registered with the Registering Authority till the date of theft and the same was being plied on temporary registration number.  In this regard, it is pertinent to mention here that even the temporary registration number is valid only for a period of one month.  However, the complainant has not placed on record any documentary evidence to prove that on the alleged date of theft i.e. 7/8.4.2017 the vehicle in question was having a valid temporary registration number (though the vehicle was purchased long back on 10.11.2015).  Hence, it is safe to hold that on the date of theft, the vehicle in question was being plied sans any registration number in violation of the terms & conditions of the insurance policy as well as the Motor Vehicles Act and, therefore, the OPs/insurer had rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant.    
9.        The Hon’ble National Commission under similar facts and circumstances in Kishan Singh Jadaun Vs. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited & Anr., IV (2023) CPJ 485 (NC) held as under :-

“10. There is no provision in the insurance policy that mandates that for the policy of insurance to be valid there should be a valid registration in force. The MV Act, however, mandates that any vehicle plying on the road should have a valid registration. The law laid down in this regard by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Narinder Singh (supra) is however, clear that registration is essential.

11. From the foregoing, it is evident that the registration of a vehicle is a sine qua non for the plying of a vehicle on a public road. A temporary registration is provided under the provisions of the MV Act only to enable the vehicle owner to obtain a permanent registration as mandated under Section 39. The insurance policy cannot be contrary to the requirements under the MV Act since that would render claims under the insurance policy to be in fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of the policy. In the instant case, the vehicle was not registered under the MV Act, 1988 although it was covered under the insurance policy. It was therefore in fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of the policy and is therefore liable to fail.”

10.        Further the Hon’ble National Commission in HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Rajiv Kumar Agarwal & Anr., IV (2023) CPJ 443 (NC), held as under :-

“12. We have carefully gone through the entire facts and circumstances of the case, rival contentions of the parties, the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act/Rules and related case laws cited by the parties and are of the view that action of respondent No. 1/ complainant in taking the vehicle on public road without valid registration, either temporary or permanent, is in clear violation of the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act/Rules and as per the case laws laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in various cases. This will take the vehicle beyond the protection of the insurance policy. Further, we agree that insurance is a pre requisite for registration in view of Rule 47 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989. It is a normal practice that for any new vehicle to be delivered to the purchaser and to allow the vehicle to come on the road, insurance, which is mandatory requirement, is issued based on chasis and engine number. Generally registration number is added later on either in the form of endorsement or by way of issuing revised policy document. Merely holding of a valid insurance policy but plying the vehicle in violation of Motor Vehicle Rules/Act will make the claim under insurance policy, which is valid otherwise, non admissible. Hence we find that action of the petitioner Insurance Company in repudiating the claim on the ground that on the date of incident vehicle was not registered, is justified and is a lawful action and both the Fora below committed a material irregularity, District Forum in allowing the complaint of the complainant and State Commission in dismissing the First Appeal of the Petitioner herein. Accordingly, both the orders of District Forum and State Commission are, hereby, set aside. The Revision Petition is allowed. The repudiation order dated 11.1.2008 of the Petitioner is upheld.”

11.        In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is safe to hold that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.  Resultantly, the present consumer complaint, being meritless, is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
12.        The pending application(s) if any, stands disposed of accordingly.
13.        Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

ANNOUNCED 24/10/2024 hg	[AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU] PRESIDENT
	[BRIJ MOHAN SHARMA] MEMBER