Karnataka

Belgaum

CC/779/2014

Dundayya S Hiremath - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Divisional Manager. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

V.C.Bembalgi

22 Mar 2017

ORDER

IN THE DIST.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM BELAGAVI.

 

Dated this 22^nd day of March 2017

Complaint No. 779/2014

 

Present:              1)      Shri.B.V.Gudli,                       President  

2)      Smt. Sunita,                           Member

-***-

Complainant/s:                    Sri.Dundayya Shivayya Hiremath,

Age:54 years, Occ: Business,

R/o.Mudalgi, Tq.Gokak, Dist.Belagavi.

 

(By Sri.V.C.Bembalgi, Advocate)

 

V/s.

                                                                     

Opponent/s:                The Divisional Manager,

The Oriental Assurance Co. Ltd.,

II Floor, Mahadiwale Arcade,

Club Road, Belagavi.

 

                                       (By Sri.M.T.Hegde, Advocate)

 

 (Order dictated by Sri.B.V.Gudli, President)

ORDER

          U/s. 12 of the C.P. Act, the complainant has filed the complaint against the O.Ps. alleging deficiency in service in not paying the insurance policy amount by the OP.

          2) The O.P. appeared through his counsel. OP has filed written version.

          3) In support of the claim of the complaint, the complainant has filed his affidavit and produced some documents. On the other hand OP has also filed affidavit and certain documents are produced on their side. Written argument is filed by both the parties.

4) We have also heard on both sides and perused the records.

          5) Now the point for our consideration is that whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of O.P & entitled to the reliefs sought?

          6) Our finding on the point is in negative, for the following reasons.

:: R E A S O N S ::

            7)       On perusal of allegations of the complaint and affidavit of complainant, the complainant is the owner of Maruti Swift vehicle bearing its chassis No.64050 & engine No.2355461 which was insured with OP company under policy no.472500/31/2015/267 valid from 30.04.2014 to 29.05.2015. The said vehicle was temporarily registered up still 29.05.2014 & on 29.05.2014 the complainant has paid the life time tax Rs.106724/- & other fees, but on that day inspection of the vehicle by RTO was not done. On 06.06.204 the said vehicle met with accident at 12.30 AM near Bantnur cross and completely damaged. The accident was reported to Lokapur PS and also OP. Crime No.91/2014 was registered by Lokapur PS. The OP conducted survey by authorized surveyor at the spot and directed the complainant to take the vehicle to garage & directed to submit claim form along with estimation. Accordingly the complainant submitted claim form & estimation of repairs of  Shantesh Motors of Rs.799000.81 along with necessary documents to OP. But the OP has not settled the claim. Hence the complainant issued demand notice to OP on 08.09.2014 calling upon for settlement of the claim. For that the OP sent repudiation letter to complainant on 26.09.2014 and reply notice dt.08.09.2014. Hence the complainant is constrained to file this complaint against OP. 

8)      On perusal of contents of objections filed by OP and evidence of Divisional Manager of OP Company, the vehicle of the complainant was temporarily registered bearing No.KA 22/T 727 valid upto 29.05.2014. As per Sec.39 of MV Act the vehicle has to be permanently registered within one month. The temporary registration date expired on 29.05.2014. The accident took place on 06.06.2014. The vehicle of the complainant was not registered within the period. The complainant used the said vehicle after expiry of the temporary registration period. Therefore OP has repudiated the claim of the complainant. Hence prays for dismissal of the complaint.

9)      The OP has taken contention that the complainant has to register the vehicle before the RTO within 30 days. It is the duty of the purchaser of the vehicle that he should register the vehicle within one month from the date of purchase & get permanent registration number. The temporary registration period of the vehicle was expired on 29.05.2014. Accident took place on 06.06.2014. There was sufficient time to register the vehicle permanently. The complainant has violated the condition of Sec.39 of MV Act and hence the complainant is not entitled to any damages from the OP.

10)    The advocate for complainant has relied on decisions reported in 2015 (4) CPR 655 (NC), III 2016 CPJ 112 (HP), 2014 CJ 792 (NC). On perusal of the decisions relied on by advocate for complainant, the said decisions are not helpful to the case on hand. 

11)    The advocate for OP relied on decision reported in 2014 ACJ 2421 between Narendrasingh vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., & Ors wherein it is held that

“MV Act 1988 Sec.39 & 192 – Registration of vehicle – Motor insurance – own damage claim – using vehicle without registration – temporarily registered for one month - vehicle met with accident after expiry of registration and was damaged - insurance company repudiated claim for damages on the ground that driver had no valid & effective driving license and vehicle had not been registered after expiry of temporary registration – Owner filed complaint under CP Act & DF allowed 75% of the cost as compensation with interest – State commission dismissed the complaint – National  commission found that driver had valid driving license but vehicle was being driven without registration which is prohibited u/s.39 & is an offence u/s.192 & dismissed the RP – SLP by owner seeking settlement of claim on non-standard basis instead of its rejection in toto – Whether using vehicle on public road without registration is an offence punishable u/s.192 & a fundamental breach of terms and conditions of policy – Held: yes; owner is not entitled to be reimbursed by the insurance company for damage to vehicle in accident”

On perusal of the above decision relied on by the advocate for OP, the complainant has violated the conditions of Sec.39 of MV Act, which reads as under:

“Section 39 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

39. Necessity for registration.—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”

 

12)    The complainant has not registered vehicle on the material date of accident which is against to Section 39 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 & thereby the complainant has contravened the terms and conditions of policy. The OP has rightly repudiated the claim on this ground.

13)    On perusal of contents of affidavit of complainant and contents of complaint the complainant is owner of the vehicle i.e. Maruti Swift bearing its chassis No.64050 & engine No.2355461 which was insured with OP company under policy no.472500/31/2015/267 valid from 30.04.2014 to 29.05.2015 & the said vehicle was temporarily registered upto 29.05.2015 and on perusal of motor insurance certificate cum policy schedule  private car policy package Policy – Zone B, the period of insurance was from 30.04.2014 to mid-night of 29.04.2015 and on perusal of motor vehicle report, period of insurance 30.04.2014 to 29.04.2015, date of registration 30.04.2014 (temporary registration) valid upto 29.05.2014. The period of temporary registration expired on 29.05.2014. However accident took place on 06.06.2014. When the accident took place the vehicle was not permanently registered before concerned RTO. The complainant has not registered his vehicle on the date of accident, hence the complainant has contravened the policy terms and conditions as he failed to get register the vehicle as per Sec.39 of MV Act within 30 days of expiry of temporary registration. Under such circumstances the complainant is not entitled for any damages from OP. The decision relied on by the advocate for OP is applicable to the case of OP & the decisions relied on by the advocate for complainant are not helpful to the case of complainant.

14)    Considering the entire facts, contention of parties as well as material on record, the complainant has failed to prove deficiency of service on the part of OP.   

15)    Accordingly the following

ORDER

          The complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed.

No order as to costs.

 (Order dictated, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on: 22^nd day of March 2017)

 

 

 

MSR