. IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KASARAGOD consumer case(CC) No. C.C.16/2007
Ahamed.P.M
...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
The Manager
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
1. K.T.Sidhiq 2. P.Ramadevi
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
ORDER
D.o.F:5/3/07 D.o.O:04/8/08 IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KASARAGOD CC.NO.16/07 Dated this, the 04th day of August 2008 PRESENT: SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER SMT.P.P.SHYMALADEVI : MEMBER Ahamed.P.M, S/o Late P.M.Ismail,Pallikkal Villa, : Complainant 342/9, Kudlu Po,Chowki,Kasaragod. The Manager, New India Assurance Co.Ltd, : Opposite party Gokul Building, M.G.Road,Kasaragod. ORDER SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT Whether the insurer can repudiate the own damage claim on the ground that the vehicle at the relevant time of accident was not registered with registering authority is the cardinal question to be decided in this complaint. Ahamed P.M the complainant here in had purchased a brand new Tata Indica trubo car bearing chassis No.605121 ATZP10402 with engine No.475 IDT 15 ATZP02204. The said vehicle was duly insured with New India Assurance Co.Ltd vide policy No.760802/31/05/01/00004293. The period of insurance was from 19/1/2006 to 18/1/2007. The vehicle was permanently registered on 7/7/2006 with register No.KL-14/F8226. The vehicle met with an accident on 3/2/06 and sustained damages. The insurer, New India Assurance Co.Ltd informed and the surveyor deputed to assess the damages. But the claim preferred by Ahamed was repudiated on the ground that at the time of accident the car was not registered either temporarily or permanently . Against this repudiation of claim Ahamed preferred this complaint attributing deficiency in service on the part of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. According to Ahamed the car with specific engine number and chassis number is insured and there is no clause or condition in the policy that the said insurance will continue to be effective only of subsequent permanent registration is regularized from the date of purchase. Mr.Ahamed has spent Rs.126735/- for the repair of the said car and therefore the complainant claiming Rs. 126735/- with interest @10% from 3/2/06 and Rs.50,000/- for mental and physical strain with cost of Rs.3000/. 2. New India Assurance Co.Ltd Kasaragod entered appearance and filed their version. According to them the temporarly registration of the car expired on 25/1/06 and the permanent registration has effected after a period of 6 months on 7/7/06. So the complainant was violated Sec.39 and 192 of the M.V.Act and as such not entitled to claim the benefit of the policy which is issued as per M.V.Act. According to opposite party the use of the vehicle was not legal and it was at the cost of Ahamed. The reason stated in the repudiation letter is legal as per policy conditions and the permanent registration does not have any retrospective effect as alleged in the complaint and the complainant has not spent Rs.126735/-. He had claimed the amount disproportionate to the loss and the complainant is not entitled for any claim and therefore the complaint deserves a dismissal. 3. Mr.Ahamed produced documents to prove his case. The documents were marked as Exts.A1 to A9. New India Assurance Co.Ltd has produced Exts.B1 to B3. Both the counsels heard and documents perused carefully. 4. The stand taken by the opposite party is that the vehicle at the time of accident have no registration and the registration cannot be made with retrospective effect is not correct in view of Sec.41(11) (13) of the Motor vehicles Act. Sec.41(11) provides that the owner fails to make an application for registration within the prescribed period, can be penalized under Sec.177 of the M.V.Act and Sec.41(13) provides that : For the purpose of sub section(11) the State Government may prescribe different amounts having regard to the period of delay on the part of owner in making an application for registration . So it is clear that the delay in registering the vehicle can be rectified by paying appropriate fine and if so the vehicle can be considered as registered from the date of permanent registration which falls due. In view of the above provision the repudiation of the claim of the complainant is unjustified and it amounts deficiency in service. 5. Reliefs and costs: The claim of the complainant is Rs.126730/- towards the repair charges of the Indica car and Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and harassment. Ext.B3 is the survey report prepared by the surveyor . According to surveyor a sum of Rs.101772/- is the liability of the insurer in case of settlement of claim. We do not find any reason to deviate from the sum arrived by the surveyor. Therefore, we allow the complaint and New India Assurance Co.Ltd is directed to pay Rs.101772/- with interest@9% per annum from the date of complaint till payment to Mr.Ahamed .P.M. New India Assurance Co.Ltd further directed to pay Rs.2000/- towards the cost of these proceedings. Time for compliance is 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT. EXTS; A1-Insurance policy schedule A2-Premium paid receipt A3-Temporary certificate of registration A4-Sale certificate A5-Registration certificate A6-Repudiation letter A7-Discharge summery, A8-Receipt pf Auto Matrix A9-Tax invoice B1-True copy of policy B2-Policy clause B3-18/4/06-Survey report MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT eva/
