BEFORE THE MANDYA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANDYA PRESENT: 1. SIDDEGOWDA, B.Sc., LLB., President, 2. M.N.MANOHARA, B.A., LLB., Member, 3. A.P.MAHADEVAMMA, B.Sc., LLB., Member, ORDER Complaint No.MDF/C.C.No.32/2009 Order dated this the 4th day of June 2009 COMPLAINANT/S Sri.T.S.Sathyananda S/o T.A.Swamy, R/o Thylur Village, Maddur Taluk, Mandya District. (By Sri.B.S.Ramesh., Advocate) -Vs- OPPOSITE PARTY/S The Manager, The New India Assurance Co., Ltd., No.1200, 2nd Cross, Ashoknagar, Mandya. (By Sri.S.L.Ramesh Babu., Advocate) Date of complaint 26.03.2009 Date of service of notice to Opposite party 20.04.2009 Date of order 04.06.2009 Total Period 1 Month 14 Days Result The complaint is partly allowed, directing the Opposite party to pay repair charges of Rs.23,298/- with cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant within two months. Sri.Siddegowda, President 1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for settlement of the insurance claim of Rs.43,468/- by the Opposite party Insurance Company. 2. The case of the complainant is that the complainant had insured his Swift Car bearing No.KA-11-M-2566 (previous temporary registration K.A.09-TRH-5595) with the Opposite party from 10.01.2008 to 09.01.2009. On 30.09.2008, the car of the complainant met with an accident near Shivapura Circle, Mysore-Bangalore Road, Maddur Town and the car was damaged. In that connection, criminal case in Crime No.449/2008 was registered by Maddur Police. After the information to the Opposite party about the accident on 03.10.2008 in writing, he got the car repaired at Mysore. The Surveyor of the Opposite party inspected the vehicle and submitted his report assessing the damages to the car. The complainant has submitted claim form with all documents. The complainant has spent Rs.28,468/- for repair of the vehicle. After getting the car repaired, the complainant registered the car with R.T.O., Mandya and vehicle No.KA-11-M-2566. In spite of submitting the claim form with relevant documents, the Opposite party has not settled the claim which amounts to deficiency in service. Even legal notice was served on the Opposite party. Therefore, the Opposite party is liable to pay repair charges of Rs.28,468/- and Rs.10,000/- for mental shock and suffering and Rs.5,000/- for litigation charges. 3. The Opposite party has filed version, admitting that the complainant got insured his Maruthi Swift Car. It is admitted that after information of the complainant about the damages to the car in the accident, the Opposite party deputed the surveyor and assessed the loss. After receiving the report, on verification, it was found that the insured vehicle was being used by the complainant without registration from 08.02.2008 till 25.10.2008. The temporary registration has expired on 08.02.2008. For the letter dated 20.11.2008 seeking clarification, the complainant has not furnished. Therefore, the complainant has violated the provisions of I.M.V. Act and terms and conditions of the policy without having proper registration after the expiry of temporary registration. The complainant has violated Section 39 of the I.M.V. Act. Therefore, the Opposite party has repudiated the claim and Opposite party is not liable to pay any damages. 4. During trial, both parties are filed the documents without any dispute. 5. We have heard both the sides. 6. Now the points that arise for our considerations are:- 1. Whether the complainant has violated the terms of the policy? 2. Whether the Opposite party has committed deficiency in service? 3. Whether the complainant is entitled to the amount claimed? 7. Our findings and reasons are as here under:- 8. The undisputed facts are that the complainant insured his Swift card bearing temporary registration No.KA-09-TRH-5595 with the Opposite party under the policy valid from 10.01.2008 to 09.01.2009 and on 30.09.2008, the car met with an accident and damaged; On information by the complainant, the Opposite party deputed the surveyor and surveyor has assessed the damages at Rs.23,298/- and the complainant has submitted the claim form with documents and Opposite party has repudiated the claim. The ground of repudiation by the Opposite party is that the complainant has violated the Section 39 of the I.M.V. Act and terms of the policy of the vehicle. Let us consider, whether the complainant has violated the terms of the policy. 9. Of course, admittedly the temporary registration expired on 08.02.2008 and permanent registration was obtained on 25.10.2008, but the accident took place on 30.09.2008. So, there is no valid registration certificate of the vehicle of the complainant from the concerned authority on the date of accident. 10. Section 39 of the I.M.V. Act reads as follows:- No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a 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 the said section. So, it is clear that the complainant has violated section 39 of the I.M.V. Act, and allowed the vehicle to use on public road without permanent registration of the vehicle, though the temporary registration expired on 08.02.2008. So, it is a penal provision and fine can be imposed on the owner of the vehicle for use of unregistered vehicle. 11. The contention of the learned counsel for the Opposite party is that the complainant has violated Section 39 of the I.M.B. Act and hence, as per the terms of the policy, the complainant is not entitled to damages under the insurance policy and repudiation is proper. 12. Now, we have to refer to the terms and conditions of the policy issued in respect of the vehicle of the complainant. The complainant has produced the insurance policy. The terms are persons or classes of persons entitled to drive, then the policy covers use of the vehicle for any purpose other than, a) Hire or reward b) Carriage of goods, c) Organised racing, d) Pace making, e) Speed testing and reliability trials, f) Use in connection with motor trade. Then, the limit of the liability is mentioned with respect to the compensation amount. Then, the insurance certificate has been issued in accordance with the provisions of chapter 10 and 11 of the I.M.V. Act. There is no condition imposed in the policy that the policy does not cover in case of violation of any provisions of the I.M.V. Act. So, when there is no such condition, even though, the complainant has violated section 39 of the I.M.V. Act, but the terms of the policy are not violated by the complainant and there is no justification for Opposite party to repudiate the claim, on the ground that the complainant has violated section 39 of the I.M.V. Act by using the vehicle without registration after expiry of the temporary registration. It is well known that the policy runs with the vehicle. In the absence of any terms and conditions of the policy that violation provisions of I.M.V. Act does not cover the insurance, the Opposite party has no legal right to repudiate the claim and refuse the payment of cost of damages caused to the vehicle in the accident. Therefore, the Opposite party is not justifying in repudiating the claim and hence, the Opposite party has committed deficiency in service as the complainant has not violated terms of the policy. 13. The complainant has sought for Rs.28,468/- as repair charges, Rs.10,000/- for mental shock and Rs.5,000/- for litigation charges. Now, with regard to repair charges, admittedly the surveyor of the Opposite party assessed the damages and assessed the loss at Rs.23,298/-, though the estimated loss is Rs.42,610/-. The complainant has not disputed the surveyor assessment. The complainant has not produced the bills. So, the complainant is entitled to repair cost of Rs.23,298/- only. 14. Though the complainant has sought for Rs.10,000/- towards mental shock, there is no question of mental shock and suffering, because on legal ground the Opposite party has repudiated the claim. Further, the complainant has claimed litigation charges of Rs.5,000/-, but it is too exaggerative. 15. In the result, we proceed to pass the following order; ORDER The complaint is partly allowed, directing the Opposite party to pay repair charges of Rs.23,298/- with cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant within two months. (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum this the 4th day of June 2009). (PRESIDENT) (MEMBER) (MEMBER)
