DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

 

CASE   NO:   CC- 100 of 2019

 

Sri Bijoy Saha,

S/O. Lt. Narayan Ch. Saha,

of Santipara, P.O.-Agartala,

P.S.-East Agartala,

Dist.-West Tripura, Agartala….......................................................................Complainant.

 

 

-VERSUS-

 

 

1. The Manager,

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Sreeji Tower 2nd Floor,

C/o.-Gauhati Tea Wear Housing Pvt. Ltd.

Adjacent to Mahindra Showroom,

Christian Basti, Guwahati-781005.

 

2. The Branch Manager, 

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.

of Aitorma, Near Metro Bazar,

Sakuntala Road, Surjya Chowmuhani,

P.O.-Agartala, P.S.-West Agartala,

Dist.-West Tripura, Pin-799001................................................................. Opposite Parties.

 

 

 

  __________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI RUHIDAS  PAL

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

 

DR (SMT) BINDU PAL

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

C O U N S E L

 

 

For the Complainant : Sri Abhijit Gon Chowdhury,

  Sri Bimal Deb,

  Sri Amal Kr. Gupta,

  Advocates.

 

 

For the O.P. Nos.1 & 2  : Smt. Baisakhi Chakraborty,

  Advocate. 

 

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON : 03/05/2021.

J U D G M E N T

          The Complainant Sri Bijoy Saha, set the law in motion by presenting the complaint petition U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986  complaining negligence & deficiency of service by the O.Ps.  

The Complainant's case, in brief, is that the Complainant had purchased a motor bike on 15/10/2018 from Sengupta Motors, L.N. Bari Road, Banamalipur, Agartala vide Chassis No.MD2A36FY6JCF62719, Engine No.JLYCJF03858 for a price of Rs.1,16,851/-(Rupees one lakh sixteen thousand eight hundred fifty one only), and at the time of purchased the said bike was insured with the O.P. i.e. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. vide Policy No.09-19-3506-1843-00000543 and the policy period of this insurance covers from 15/10/2018 to 14/10/2023. The said vehicle was given a temporary Registration No. BR No.TR-01-TEM-AQ-7551 which was valid for 30 days as per Section 43(2) of M.V. Act. but the temporary number the said bike was missing on 27/10/2018 at about 5.00 hours from the parking place at Santipara, Agartala in front of the house of the Complainant. Thereafter, the Complainant informed the matter to the East Agartala Police Station on 27/10/2018 vide G.D.E. No.East Agartala P.S. GDE No.13 of 27/10/2018 which was treated as F.I.R. and was registered as P.S. Case No.2018 EAG 211 U/S 379 of I.P.C. The Complainant had made a claim before the O.P. Insurance Co. through online and accordingly the Insurance Company has given a claim reference for future correspondence vide No.06-19-2405-1843-00000011. In connection with the claim No.06-19-2405-1843-00000011 of the Insurance Company and enquiry was done by one Prabal Bose who had taken all the relevant papers from the Complainant. But the Company had issued a letter to the Complainant stating that the Complainant is not entitled to get any compensation for violation of Section 39 of M.V. Act, 1988. The Complainant by a letter dated 13/09/2019 informed the Insurance Co. to settle the  matter as early as possible as he was in need of a new motor bike for his business, but there was no reply till date from the side of the O.P., Insurance Company.    

        Hence, the complainant seeking various reliefs  lodged the complaint due to deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps. 

2. On the other hand O.Ps. contested the case by filling written statements. 

        In the written statements the O.Ps. submitted para-wise reply to the complaint in seritem. Mostly, O.Ps. denied the dispute and averred that the instant complaint is false and concocted and it is liable to be dismissed. Moreover, it is averred that the Commission does not have jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint as there is hopelessly barred by law of limitation nor any deficiency in service on their part.   

  The O.Ps. in their written statements / written version stated that there is no cause of action in filing the instant complaint and the Complainant has approached this Commission with unclean hands by making false allegation against the answering O.P. After receipt of intimation from the Complainant, the O.P. conducted investigation of the incident through its appointed investigator and found that the vehicle was not registered as on date of incident and was being used by the owner(Complainant) in violation of the provisions of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is also mentioned that in the complaint petition the Complainant failed to show any kind of deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps.                                                       

EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE PARTIES:-

Complainant has examined himself as PW-I and he has submitted his examination-in-Chief by way of Affidavit. In this case the complainant produced 12 documents comprising 36 sheets under a Firisti dated 27/02/2020. The documents are namely Xerox copy of G.D. Entry, Xerox copy of Form C.R. TEM, Original Copy of Sri Prabal Bose vehicle original documents received, Xerox copy of Insurance Policy, Xerox copy of sale certificate, Original copy of Joint Transport Commissioner, Original copy of Bijoy Saha from Bajaj Allianz, Original letter of Investigation, Original letter from Company, Copy of F.I.R., Notice dated 13/09/2019 from Bijoy Saha to Ins. Company & Registered slip & delivery confirmation letter.  On identification the documents are marked as Exhibit-I series. The Complainant was cross examined by the O.Ps. side.

        On behalf of the O.Ps. one witness namely Sri Nayan Choudhury, Working for Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.  was examined. The said witness was also cross examined by the Complainant side. The said witness has produced some photocopy of documents dated 31/01/2020. On identification the documents have been  marked  as Exhibit -A Series. 

POINTS TO BE DETERMINED:-

    On perusal of the pleadings of both parties and having regard to the evidence adduced by the parties, the following points are to be determined:

    (i). Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps towards the Complainant?

    (ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any compensation/  relief as prayed for?

ARGUMENTS OF BOTH SIDES 

          We have heard arguments from both sides.

    At the time of argument, Learned Counsel of the Complainant submitted that the Complainant had purchased a bike on 15/10/2018 for his business purpose from Sengupta Motors, L.N. Bari Road, Banamalipur, Agartala for an amount of Rs.1,16,851/-(Rupees One lakh sixteen thousand eight hundred fifty one) only. The said bike was temporarily registered with Registering Authority and as per temporary registration vehicle was insured with the O.P. i.e. from 15/10/2018 to 14/10/2023 in the name of the Complainant the owner of the vehicle.  The said vehicle was theft in front of the house of the Complainant on 27/10/2018 thereafter the Complainant informed the matter to the East Agartala Police Station vide GDE No.13 of 27/10/2018. From the records it is seen that the vehicle was theft within the temporary registration and also under the purview of Insurance Policy. After investigation the Investigating Officer submits his final report before the Ld. Court stating that there is no chance to recover the stolen bike for which he submitted the final report No.25/2019 dated.31/03/2019. But the Complainant in all respect had proved his claim by oral evidence and by submitting the relevant documents has been able to prove that there is a clear deficiency of service occurred by the O.P. Learned Counsel of the Complainant also submitted his written argument.    

          On the other hand Learned Counsel  of the O.Ps. stated that the O.P. Insurance Company received the intimation of the alleged theft of the Motorcycle belatedly on 29/10/2018 from the owner / Complainant where the alleged theft was occurred on 26/10/2018. Thereafter, the O.P. Insurance Company conducted investigation of the incident through its appointed investigator and found that the Motorcycle was not registered as on date of incident and was being used by the owner(Complainant) in violation of the provisions of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act. But the Complainant used the bike without registration at the time of theft. Further , there has been violation of Rule 42 of Central Motor Vehicle Rules 1989 as the vehicle was delivered to the Complainant/owner without registration by the authorized dealer. Therefore, the claim of the Complainant was repudiated on valid grounds and thus the complaint of the Complainant is liable to be dismissed. So, the Complainant is not entitled to get any compensation. Learned Counsel further submitted that the Complainant is not entitled for any compensation from the Insurance Company.  

 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION:                                     

             We have carefully gone through the pleadings as well as evidence of both sides. For the sake of the convenience both the points are taken up together for decision.  It is admitted fact that the Complainant purchased a motor bike on 15/10/2018 from Sengupta Motors, L.N. Bari Road, Banamalipur, Agartala vide Chassis No.MD2A36FY6JCF62719, Engine No.JLYCJF03858 for a price of Rs.1,16,851/-(Rupees one lakh sixteen thousand eight hundred fifty one only). At the time of purchase the said bike was insured with the O.P. i.e. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. vide Policy No.09-19-3506-1843-00000543 and the policy period of this insurance covers from 15/10/2018 to 14/10/2023. The said vehicle was given a temporary No. BR No.TR-01-TEM-AQ-7551 which was valid for 30 days as per Section 43(2) of M.V. Act. but during the period of temporary number the said bike was missing / theft on 27/10/2018 at about 5.00 hours from the parking place at Santipara, Agartala in front of the house of the Complainant. Thereafter, the Complainant informed the matter to the East Agartala Police Station on 27/10/2018 vide G.D.E. No.East Agartala P.S. GDE No.13 dated 27/10/2018. F.I.R. was registered as P.S. Case No.2018 EAG 211 U/S 379 of I.P.C. The Complainant had made a claim before the O.P. Insurance Co. through online and accordingly the Insurance Company has given a claim reference for future correspondence vide No.06-19-2405-1843-00000011. In connection with the claim No.06-19-2405-1843-00000011 of the Insurance Co. an enquiry was done by one Probal Bose who had taken all the relevant papers from the Complainant. But the Company had issued a letter to the Complainant stating that the Complainant is not entitled to get any compensation for violation of Section 39 of M.V. Act, 1988. The Complainant by a letter dated 13/09/2019 informed the Insurance Co. to settle the  matter as early as possible as he was in need of a new motor bike for his business, but there was no reply till date from the side of the O.P., Insurance Company. 

           On perusal of the written version submitted by the O.P. as well as their examination-in-chief on Affidavit submitted by the O.P. We found that the only ground for repudiation of the claim was that the Motor bike was used in violation of the Section 39 of the M.V. Act, 1988. The O.P. also made another ground for delayed information in respect of Commission of theft. From the exhibited documents relied upon by the Complainant, we find that after purchasing the bike a temporary Registration number was given which is being No.TR01(TEM) AQ-7551. In the final report submitted by the I.O. he opined that during investigation it is revealed that on 27/10/2018 at around 5.00 hours the motor bike of the Complainant bearing Registration No.TR01(TEM) AQ-7551, Chassis No.MD2A36FY6JCF62719 & Engine No.JLYCJF03858 was stolen away by unknown miscreant. There is no doubt about the missing or theft of the bike and it is evident that the bike was stolen away during the temporary registration period. The temporary registration number was given under the Section 43(2) of the M.V. Act, 1988. In the written version at Para-13 submitted by the O.P. it is mentioned that as per Central Motor Vehicle Rules-1989, Rule-42 states “No holder of a trade certificate shall deliver a motor vehicle to a purchaser without registration whether temporary or permanently”. So Rule 42 authorizes the holder of trade certificate to sale a motor vehicle under a temporary registration. The case of the Complainant is that the bike was insured w.e.f. 15/10/2018 up to 14/10/2023 mentioning the engine number and chassis number. So, the O.Ps. can not repudiate the claim of the Complainant. The Complainant also adduced sufficient documentary evidence in support of his claim. As per Section 43 of M.V. Act, 1988 a temporary registration is valid for 1 month and the incident of theft was occurred within that period of temporary registration. So it is very much clear that the O.P. illegally repudiated the claim of the Complainant and their repudiation is not justifiable. 

          In view of the discussion made above, we are of the considered view that the Complainant had successfully made out the case of deficiency of service against the O.Ps.                         

 So, we are in the opinion that there is deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps. for rejecting the claim of the Complainant. Now, we will decide the quantum  of compensation which the Complainant is entitled. The price of the bike / cost of the bike was Rs.1,16,851/- the Complainant is entitled to get the entire price of the bike. The Complainant is  also entitled to get compensation for harassment, in convenience & mental agony which will be an lump sum amount of Rs.50,000/-. We also decide that the Complainant is entitled to get the litigation costs of Rs.10,000/- that is in total the Complainant will get Rs.1,76,851/-(Rs.1,16,851/- + Rs.50,000/- + Rs.10,000/-). The O.Ps. are directed to make the whole payment within 2 months from the date of this judgment, if the payment is not made within 2 months then it will carry interest @ 9% per annum till the payment is made in full. Accordingly, the complaint is partly allowed. 

Supply a certified copy of the judgment to both the parties free of cost. 

                    

    Announced.

 

 

 

SRI  RUHIDAS  PAL

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA

 

 

 

 

  DR (SMT)  BINDU  PAL

MEMBER, 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA