Andhra Pradesh

Nellore

CC/18/2015

Tellakula Venkata Satyanarayana,son of Narasimhulu - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Divisional Manager Oriental Insurance Company ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

S.M.Shaida

18 Jan 2016

ORDER

Date of Filing     :09-02-2015

                                                                                                Date of Disposal:18-01-2016

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM:NELLORE

Monday, this the 18^th day of  January, 2016

 

PRESENT: Sri M. Subbarayudu Naidu, B.Com.,B.L.,LL.M.,President(FAC) & Member                             

                   Sri N.S. Kumara Swamy, B.Sc.,LL.B., Member.

 

C.C.No.18/2015

 

Tellakula Venkata Satyanarayana,

S/o.Narasimhulu, Hindu, Aged about 37 years,

Business man, Residing  at D.No.6-4-58,

Jeenigala Street, Stonehousepet, Nellore.                                                      ..… Complainant      

 

                                                                           Vs.

 

1.	The Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office, 58-8-16(3), Ground Floor,  B.M. Partments, Ramkurivari street, Santhapet, Ongole, Prakasam District.
2.	The Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Dargamitta, Nellore.                                                                       ..…Opposite parties

                                                        .        

            This complaint coming on 12-01-2016 before us for hearing in the presence of                Sri S.M. Shaida, advocate for the complainant and                                                                      Sri E.V. Rami Reddy, advocate for the opposite parties  and having stood over for consideration till this day and this Forum made the following:

 

ORDER

(ORDER BY  Sri N.S. KUMARASWAMY, MEMBER)

This complaint is filed under Section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986  prays to direct the opposite parties  to pay the claim amount under the policy No.462900/31/2014/8050 of Rs.28,000/-, damages of Rs.5,000/- and costs of this complaint.

2.         The brief averments of the complaint are that the complainant is the owner of two wheeler vehicle(moped) i.e, TVS XL Super HD moped bearing registration                           No.AP26UGT/R9565 and the said vehicle was insured with the opposite party under policy no. 462900/31/2014/8050 which is inforce. While so on 30-6-2014 at about 7 a.m, when the complainant parked the above said moped at Murali Krishna Hotel for purchasing of the vegetables in AC vegetable market , the said vehicle was committed theft by some unknown persons. The said fact noticed by the complainant while he was returning from vegetable market. The said fact was informed to his friends and relatives and after thorough search by them , the vehicle was not traced. Finally, the complainant got issued report to the 4^th town police station at Nellore and the same was registered in crime No.258 of 2014 and to that effect FIR issued. Further, the complainant informed the above said incident to the opposite party requesting them to pay the Insurance claim amount. Having received the claim forms by the opposite party, they issued a letter dated 23-7-2014 with false and frivolous allegations. Since they failed to pay the insured amount, the complainant constrained to file this case for their inaction and pray for the relief as claimed for in the complaint.

 

            3.         On the other hand, the opposite parties filed counter/written version denying all the allegations made in the complaint except that the complainant purchased said moped vehicle on 7-12-2013 and got temporary registration number AP26UGT/R9565 and on the same day, the complainant obtained the insurance policy from the opposite parties. The opposite parties further contented that the said policy issued in accordance with the provisions of A.P.M.V act .The opposite parties further contented that under any circumstances the said vehicle must obtain regular registration number within a period of six months from the date of issuance of temporary registration  i.e, on or before 6-5-2014 otherwise, the insurance policy will get lapsed along with temporary registration. Since the complainant did not get the registration within a period of six months , the temporary registration got lapsed and automatically the insurance policy became invalid with effect from 7-5-2015 onwards. Further, the complainant also gave a report to the police after long delay and the cost of the vehicle was mentioned as Rs.10,000/- only in the FIR by the police. On account of not obtaining regular registration, the complainant is not entitled to drive the said vehicle on road in public places as per provisions of section 39 of M.V.Act and rules. The opposite party further contented that the complainant is not entitled to claim insurance policy amount from them since the complainant violated the provisions of M.V. Act . Hence, the complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed for and the complaint may be dismissed with exemplary costs.

            4.         The points for determination would be

1)Whether the opposite parties are liable for payment of insurance policy amount

    in respect of theft of the vehicle committed by unknown persons , if so, whether

    the complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed for?

           2) To what relief.

 

5.         To substantiate the evidences on both sides, the complainant filed evidence on affidavit as PW1 and marked ExA1 to A4. On the other hand, the opposite party filed evidence on affidavit and no exhibits marked on their side. Both parties filed written arguments on their respective side. Heard on both sides. Perused the entire material records filed on behalf of both  parties. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and on the side of opposite parties.

 

6.         POINT No.1:   It is the allegation of the complainant that his vehicle was committed theft by unknown persons and when he claimed for insurance amount from the opposite parties, the opposite parties repudiated the claim on the ground that  the vehicle was not having regular registration and violated the provisions of section 39 of M.V. Act.

 

7.         On the other hand, the opposite party contented that the complainant purchased the moped vehicle on 7-12-2013 and got temporary registration with insurance policy. The opposite party further contented that since the complainant failed to get registration within a period of six months, the temporary registration as well as insurance policy got lapsed and hence the claim is repudiated. Hence the complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed for in the complaint and the complaint may be dismissed with exemplary costs.

 

8.         The core question that falls for consideration is as to whether the insurance company could legally and validly repudiate the claim of the complainant/insured in toto in respect of the vehicle moped in question, merely on the ground that it was being used in violation of the mandatory provision of the section 39 of M.V.Act, 1988, meaning thereby it was not having valid registration certificate at the time of theft . Admittedly, in the instant case the moped in  question was purchased on 7-12-2013.  It was granted temporary registration vide No. AP26/UGT/R9565 which expired on                                        6-5-2014. Admittedly, on the date the vehicle was stolen, it was not having valid registration certificate and it was being used without a valid registration certificate. Section 39 and 43 of the M.V. Act 1989 which are relevant for the determination of controversy read as here under .

 

 

                        Necessary Registration:-  

39. No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this chapter and the certificate of registration of this vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner:

 

            Provided that nothing in this Section shall apply to a motor vehicle in possession of a dealer subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government.

 

43.Temporary Registration:

 

1)Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 40, the owner of a motor vehicle may apply to any registering authority or other prescribed authority to have the vehicle temperarily registered in the prescribed manner and for the issue in the prescribed manner of a temporary  certificate of registration and a  temporary registration mark.

 

2)A registration made under this section shall be valid only for a period not exceeding one month and shall not be renewable:

 

            Provided that where a motor vehicle is so registered is a chassis to which a body has not been attached and the same is detained in a workshop beyond the said period of one month for being fitted with a body or any unforeseen circumstances beyond the control of the owner, the period may, on payment of such fees, if any, as may be prescribed, be extended by such further period as the registering authority or other prescribed authority, as the case may be, may allow.

 

3) In a case where the motor vehicle is held under hire –purchase agreement, lease or hypothecation, the registering authority or other prescribed authority shall issue a temporary certificate of registration of such vehicle, which shall incorporate legibly and prominently the full name and address of the person with whom such agreement has been entered into by the owner.”

 

A bare perusal of Section 39 afore-extracted, reveals that no person shall use the motor vehicle in any public place without any valid registration granted by the Registering authority in accordance with the provisions of the Act. However, according to section 43, the owner of the vehicle may apply to the registering authority for temporary registration, and a temporary registration mark, the same shall be only for a period not exceeding one month. The proviso to section 43 clarifies that the period of one month may be extended for such a further period by the registering authority, only in a case, where a temporary registration was granted, in respect of chassis to which, body has not been attached, and the same was detained in a workshop, beyond the said period of one month, for being fitted with a body or unforeseen circumstances, beyond the control of the owner.

 

            9.         In the instant case as stated above, temporary registration of the vehicle moped in question expired on 6-5-2014. There is nothing on record that immediately thereafter the complainant applied for registration of the vehicle with the registering authority. As stated above, till the date of the theft of the moped in question, it had not been registered with the registering authority. The moped , in question, was thus being used without any valid registration certificate and had been riding on the road, where from it was stolen. Thus the moped was being used by the complainant wholly and completely in violation of mandatory provision of section of motor vehicle act. A similar question held for decision in Narendra Singh’s case. The Honourable Apex court, in the aforesaid case, laid down the principle of law, to the effect that if the vehicle was being used without   valid registering certificate, and damage to the same or loss thereof occurred, then the Insurance Company could legally and validly repudiate the claim of the insured , in toto. In Kaushalendra Kumar Mishra’s case, it was also held that use of the vehicle, in violation of law itself will take it beyond the protection of the policy. In Bharti Axa General Insurance Co.Ltd’s case, it was also held that if the loss of the vehicle occurs, when it was being used, in violation of the mandatory provisions of law, the insurer will be justified, to repudiate the claim of the insured. The principle of law  laid down, in the aforesaid cases, is fully applicable to the facts of the instant case. Similarly, the vehicle in question, was being used by the  complainant  in violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 39 of the motor vehicles Act, 1988 at the time of theft thereof, the insurer was justified in legally and validly repudiating the claim of the complainant. Therefore there was, no deficiency, in rendering service on the part of the opposite parties in repudiating the claim of the complainant.

 

            10.       In view of the discussions cited supra, we are of the opinion that the complainant has deviated the provisions of 39 of M.V Act and the complainant was at fault as after expiry of the temporary registration of the mopid in question, he did not apply for registration with the concerned authority  and the repudiation of the claim by the opposite parties is justified. As such the complaint filed by the complainant is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly point No.1 is answered.

11.       POINT No.2:   In the result ,the complaint is dismissed but in the circumstances of the case both parties shall bear their own costs.

Typed to the dictation to the Stenographer, corrected  and pronounced by us in the open  Forum, this the 18^th day of  January, 2016.

 

                 Sd/-                                                                                            Sd/-

           MEMBER                                                                               PRESIDENT(F.A.C.)

 

                                                APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined for the complainant

 

P.W.1  -

19-08-2015

Sri Tellakula Venkata Satyanarayana, S/o.Narasimhulu, Nellore (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

Witnesses Examined for the opposite parties

 

R.W.1  -

19-08-2015

Sri S.V.L.D.Prasad, S/o.Vallabhaipatel, Working as Divisional Manager, Ongole.

                             EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE COMPLAINANT

Ex.A1  -	11-07-2014	Photocopy of FIR No.258/2014 in Nellore IV town police station.
Ex.A2  -	-	Photocopy of letter from complainant to the IVth town Police Station Inspector, Nellore Town.
Ex.A3  -	23-07-2014	Letter from  opposite party No.1 to the complainant.
Ex.A4  -	07-12-2013	Photocopies of Receipt Voucher Nos.4454 for Rs.27,703/-, No.4455 for Rs.520/-  and Invoice No.1093 for  Rs.950/- and Invoice for Rs.2100/-in favour of complainant issued by Lakshmi Priya TVS (2013-2014).

 

                         EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTIES

-Nil-

                                                                                                 Id/-

                                                                                                         PRESIDENT(F.A.C.)

Copies to:

1.	Sri S.M.Shaida,  Advocate, 5/356, Srirangarajapuram, Stonehousepet, Nellore.
2.	Sri E.V.Rami Reddy, Advocate, 24/1399, Sujathamma Colony, Podalakur Road, Near S.P.Bunglow, Nellore-524 003.

Date when free copy was issued: