District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum
Dakshin Dinajpur, W. Bengal
(Old Sub-Jail Municipal Market Complex, 2nd Floor, Balurghat Dakshin Dinajpur Pin - 733101)
Telefax: (03522)-270013
Present
Shri Sambhunath Chatterjee - President
Miss. Swapna Saha - Member
Shri Siddhartha Ganguli - Member
Consumer Complaint No. 44/2014
Sri Nandan Karmakar
S/o Gyanendra Nath Karmakar
Vill.: Upper Nichabandar
PO: Patiram, P.S.: Balurghat,
Dist. Dakshin Dinajpur …………………Complainant(s)
V-E-R-S-U-S
1. The Branch Manager,
National Insurance Company Limited, Balurghat Branch
Having office at Balurghat,
PO & PS: Balurghat
Dist.: Dakshin Dinajpur.
2. Khokon Motors Works Pvt. Ltd.,
Authorized Dealer of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.
Having showroom at Power House,
PO: Beltalapark, PS: Balurghat,
Dist.: Dakshin Dinajpur ………………Opposite Party / Parties
Ld. Advocate(s):
For complainant ……………… - Shri Samit Bhowmick
For OP No. 1 ……………… - Shri Nirmal Agarwal
For OP Nos. 2 ……………… - None
Date of Filing : 11.11.2014
Date of Disposal : 19.01.2016
Contd…P/2
Judgment & Order dt. 19.01.2016
Fact of the case in brief is that the complainant is the owner of the vehicle (Mahindra Bolero Plus). The said vehicle was duly insured with the National Insurance Company Ltd. (NIC) vide policy No.150703/31/13/6100004735 and the policy remained valid from 2.8.2013 midnight of 1.8.2014. The cost of the vehicle was Rs.5,98,580/-. The said vehicle met with an accident on 6.10.2013 while the said vehicle was running from Kaliaganj towards Kushumandi and at that time one NBSTC bus being registered no. WB 63-3065 was coming from the opposite side and dashed the vehicle of the complainant, as a result the vehicle sustained heavy damage and due to the said accident some passengers died. On the basis of the said accident an FIR was lodged at Kaliaganj PS and the case was started u/s 279/337/304A/427 and the charge sheet was submitted, subsequently against both the vehicles.
Since the vehicle was damaged and it was insured with the insurance company and as such to reimburse the expenses for repairing of the damaged vehicle the claim was made before the insurance company and one surveyor / valuer of the insurance company asked the complainant to submit the necessary documents. As per the requirement of the said surveyor / valuer of the insurance company all the documents were provided but in order to avoid the claim of the complainant it was informed to the complainant that claim of the complainant was closed and repudiated the claim of the complainant for reimbursement of the cost of the repairing of the damaged vehicle from the insurance company.
On the basis of the said fact the complainant through a letter informed the insurance company praying for releasing of the fund on the basis of the insurance policy issued by the OP No. 1.
Contd…P/3
Since no action was taken on the part of the OP No. 1. The complainant filed this case praying for redressal of his grievance and also prayed for realization of the cost of the damage vehicle to the tune of Rs.6 lakh and Rs.1 lakh towards compensation.
The OP No.1 contested the case by filing written version whereby the OP No. 1 denied all the material allegations of the complaint. It was stated by the OP No. 1 that the case is not maintainable as filed by the complainant since there is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of OP No. 1. Since the complainant did not submit required documents to the OP No. 1 and as such the OP No. 1 had to repudiate the claim of the complainant. It was specifically stated that at the time of accident the vehicle was used for the commercial purpose which was a clear violation of the policy condition. It was emphasized by the OP No. 1 that at the time of accident the vehicle was used without any valid registration certificate and permit issued by the Regional Transport Authority of state of West Bengal, which is a clear violation of MV Act and as such the policy is void and OP No. 1 is not liable to indemnify to the insured. Without registration the insured cannot ply the vehicle in public place and as such the OP No. 1 is not liable to pay any compensation for damage of the vehicle. At the time of accident the vehicle was in the name of the dealer and RTA issued trade certificate which was issued for the purpose of trade only. The dealer – M/s. Khokon Motors Works (P) Ltd. issued a sale certificate to the complainant Nandan Karmakar and also issued a Form-19 for the purpose of use of vehicle for bringing in and out from the showroom. The complainant neither temporarily registered the vehicle nor registered ultimately on the date of accident the vehicle was coming from Siliguri with fare paying passengers and also loaded with daily newspapers. The said vehicle was used for the commercial purpose violating the terms and conditions of the policy and such the OP No. 1 has prayed for dismissal of the case.
Contd…P/4
OP No.2 ‘M/s. Khokon Motors Works Pvt. Ltd., filed a written version and denied all the materials allegations of the complaint. It was stated that the complainant purchased the vehicle from the OP No. 2 and the OP No. 2 duly issued sales certificate against the purchase of said vehicle. The complainant being purchaser of the said vehicle received TCR (Form-21) in original from the OP No. 2 on 3.10.2013 for registering the vehicle with the RTA, Dakshin Dinajpur at his own risk and cost. The OP No.2 was not aware regarding any accident met by the vehicle of the complainant on 6.10.2013. If the vehicle of the complainant had been damaged due to the said accident the concerned insurance company will pay the claim of the complainant for damage and OP No. 1 is responsible for paying the loss sustained by the complainant due to damage in his vehicle. The complainant in order to extort money from the OP No. 2 falsely filed this case against the said answering OP No. 2.
It was further stated that after selling the vehicle and after issuing TCR (Form-21) in original, relation between the complainant and OP No. 2 as consumer has ceased as the complainant not a consumer under the OP No.2, therefore, the OP No. 2 should be deleted from the cost title of the complainant.
On the basis of the pleadings of the respective parties following points are to be determined :-
- Whether the vehicle was insured with the OP No. 1?
- Whether the complainant obeyed the terms & conditions of the policy ?
- Whether the vehicle had valid registration number?
- Whether the registration was made in RTA as per the MV Act?
- Whether there was deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1?
- Whether OP No. 2 is liable to compensate the damage sustained by the complainant?
- Whether the complainant will be entitled to get relief as prayed for?
Contd…P/5
DECISION WITH REASONS
All the points are taken together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.
Ld. Lawyer for the complainant submits that the complainant purchased the vehicle from the OP No. 2 and the said vehicle met with an accident on 6.10.2013 and because of the said accident the vehicle sustained severe damage. The vehicle was insured with National Insurance Company (NIC) OP No. 2 and also policy has been filed which proves that the policy was valid at the relevant point of time and the NIC – OP No. 2 denied claim of damage of the complainant illegally for which this Forum should give direction upon the OP No. 1 to clear the amount of damage sustained by the complainant’s vehicle during continuation of the policy of the policy under the OP No. 1.
Ld. Lawyer emphasized that insurance company has claimed that the vehicle was not registered at the relevant point of time and because of violation of the terms & conditions, the NIC is not liable to pay compensation. Ld. Lawyer pointed out that the documents filed by the complainant to prove that the vehicle purchased on 3.10.2013 and the vehicle met with an accident on 6.10.2013 and it was incumbent duty of OP No. 2 to make necessary arrangement for registration of the vehicle and during the said period the accident took place for which the OP No. 2 cannot deny liability to pay damage sustained by the said vehicle on 6.10.2013. In view of the said fact that the Ld. Lawyer prayed for allowing the case and also prayed for necessary direction upon the OPs to reimburse the amount of compensation sustained by the vehicle during the said accident.
Ld. Lawyer for the insurance company argued that it is the first and foremost duty of the complainant to get the vehicle registered in the MV Deptt. and the said registration was not made for which the complainant violated the terms & conditions of the policy and therefore,
Contd…P/6
NIC cannot be held liable to pay compensation to the complainant. In support of the said contention Ld. Lawyer for the OPs filed the documents including repeated demand from the complainant for production of necessary documents including registration book, tax book, original driving licence, fitness certificate and DCR etc. but the complainant failed to provide those documents for which the complainant cannot be paid the compensation as claimed by the complainant.
Ld. Lawyer for the insurance company argued after the said accident when the compensation claim was made a Surveyor was appointed by NIC – OP No. 1 and he submitted report wherefrom it is evident that the dealer issued a trade plate number to newly sold vehicle, which may be given for shifting the vehicle to dealers point to MV Deptt. for registration. Some individuals with trade plate registration number ply the vehicle several days without depositing the registration fee, road tax etc. violating the provision u/s 39 of the MV Act, wherein there is clear bar that no person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of the motor vehicle shall drive the vehicle in any public place or any other place unless the vehicle registered in accordance with the said provision and the certificate of the registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner of the Government. Without depositing registration fee and road tax etc. the vehicle’s owner is not permitted to ply his vehicle anywhere or ply his vehicle with trade plate registration number of the dealer. In view of the said anomalies and also from the documents in respect of institution of this case after the said accident, it appears that in the FIR it was mentioned that the vehicle was retuning from Kushumandi with the newspapers for selling and when the vehicle reached near Bhawanipur the accident occurred. Therefore, the said private vehicle was used for commercial purpose without obtaining any permission from the MV Deptt. which also speaks
Contd…P/7
that there was another violation of the terms & conditions of the policy. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the above case the Ld. Lawyer for the insurance company emphasized that OP No. 1 cannot be held liable to pay the compensation as claimed by the complainant.
Ld. Lawyer for the OP No. 2 argued that after selling the vehicle to the complainant and issuing of TCR (Form- 21) the relationship between the complainant and OP No. 2 ceased to exist. Though, the vehicle was insured with insurance company in the month of August, 2013 and receipt was issued on 3.10.2013 and the sale certificate was issued to that effect against the purchase of the said vehicle. The complainant being purchaser of the said vehicle, received TCR (Form-21) in original from the OP No. 2 for registering the vehicle with the RTA, Dakshin Dinajpur at his own risk and cost. Since, the accident took place 3 days after the issuance of the sale certificate and it was incumbent duty of the complainant to get the vehicle registered in MV Deptt. and for not doing the same to ply the same illegal for which the complainant must suffer and the OP No. 1 cannot be asked to pay entire compensation as claimed by the complainant. Having regard to submission of the respective parties it is admitted fact that the complainant purchased a Mahindra Bolero Plus vehicle from the OP No. 2. It is also admitted fact that the vehicle was insured with NIC. From the materials on record it is crystal clear that the accident took place on 6.10.2013 for which the several persons died and the vehicle sustained serious damage. It is also admitted fact that from the documents provided by the insurance company that the vehicle was not registered with the MV Deptt. and the vehicle was illegally being driven at the relevant point of time. Since, the terms & conditions of the policy was not fulfilled by the complainant for not getting the vehicle registered with the MV Deptt. and on failure to provide the necessary documents as asked for by the OP No. 1. OP No. 1 rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant.
Contd…P/8
It is an admitted fact that the vehicle was purchased from the OP No. 2 and OP No. 2 issued sale certificate and the accident took place on 6.10.2013 after issuance of sale certificate by the OP No. 2 and also OP No. 2 issued TCR (Form-21) in original to the complainant on 3.10.2013 for registering the vehicle with RTA, Dakshin Dinajpur. From the materials on record it appears that the complainant violated the provision as laid down u/s 39 of the MV Act, visa-vis the provision of section 22 of the said act wherein it is stated that no person shall drive any motor vehicle without depositing registration fee, road tax etc. But here in this case the registration was not made in the MV Deptt.,Dakshin Dinajpur and the TCR was issued to the complainant for registering the vehicle with the RTA, Dakshin Dinajpur. The complainant in order to avoid the payment of registration fee, road tax and other fees etc. and used the vehicle for commercial purpose without obtaining any sanction from the MV Deptt. and met with accident for which neither the insurance company nor the dealer can be held liable to pay compensation as claimed by the complainant. Apart from the said fact that since the complainant committed illegal act and he did not come with clean hands to get relief from this Forum, therefore, we are not inclined to entertain the prayer made by the complainant. Though, it was unfortunate that immediately after purchase, the said vehicle met with accident, huge damage was sustained and also caused death of several persons but due to gross mistake on the part of the complainant and he must suffer for his own fault.
Thus, all the points are disposed of accordingly.
Hence, it is
O R D E R E D
that the instant petition of complaint CC No.44/2014 is dismissed on contest without any cost.
Contd…P/9
Let a plain copy of this order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost.
Dictated & corrected
………….….…….
(S. N. Chatterjee)
President
We concur,
………...…… …………..……..
(S. Saha) (S. Ganguli)
Member Member
- Date when free copy was issued ……………………
- Date of application for certified copy ……………………
- Date when copy was made ready ……………………
- Date of delivery ……………………
FREE COPY [Reg. 18(6)]
- Mode of dispatch ……………………
- Date of dispatch ……………………
-x-
