Tripura

StateCommission

A/41/2018

Sri. Rajib Dasgupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

The New India Assurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. Rajib Saha

28 Jan 2019

ORDER

Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Agartala.

 

 

Case No.A.41.2018

 

 

 

 

1. Sri Rajib Dasgupta,

S/o Sri Krishna Dasgupta,

Resident of Bhattapukur, 

P.O. A.D. Nagar, Agartala,

P.S. West Agartala, District - West Tripura.

… … … … Appellant/Complainant.

Vs

 

1. The New India Assurance Company Ltd.,

Agartala Divisional Office,

4, Mantribari Road, Agartala,

West Tripura.

                                                          … … … … Respondent/Opposite party.

 

 

 

 

Present

Hon’ble Mr. Justice U.B. Saha

President,

State Commission

 

 

Mr. Narayan Ch. Sharma,

Member,

State Commission

 

Dr. Chhanda Bhattacharyya,

Member,

State Commission

 

 

 

 

 

For the Appellant:                                                Mr. Rajib Saha, Adv.

For the Respondent:                                            Mr. Gitangshu Sekhar Das, Adv.

Date of Hearing & Delivery of Judgment:          28.01.2019.

 

 

J U D G M E N T [O R A L]

 

U.B. Saha, J,

The instant appeal is directed against the judgment dated 20.11.2018 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (hereinafter referred to as District Forum), West Tripura, Agartala in Case No. C.C.20 of 2018 whereby and whereunder the learned District Forum dismissed the complaint petition.

2. Heard Mr. Rajib Saha, Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant, Sri Rajib Dasgupta (hereinafter referred to as complainant) as well as Mr. Gitangshu Sekhar Das, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, New India Assurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as opposite party).    
3. Brief facts of the case are as follows:-  

The complainant had purchased one vehicle, namely, Tata Tigor XZ (O) on 21.08.2017 from M/s Niladri Motors, Agartala. The aforesaid vehicle was duly insured with the opposite party, New India Assurance Company Ltd., Agartala Division (hereinafter referred to as Insurance Company). During the subsistence of the said policy the vehicle of the complainant met with an accident on 28.09.2017 near College Tilla Outpost which resulted in much damage to it. Just after the accident, the complainant, the owner of the vehicle duly reported to the opposite party-Insurance Company regarding accident apart from filing FIR with the O/C, East Agartala Police Station within which jurisdiction the accident occurred.  The complainant got his vehicle repaired from M/s Niladri Motors by incurring an amount of Rs.83,400/- which comprises price of parts and labour charges. It is also stated in the complaint petition that on the basis of the information furnished by him, the opposite party-Insurance Company appointed one Surveyor, namely, Mr. Biswajit Saha for assessment of damage of the vehicle and also loss incurred by the complainant. The aforesaid Surveyor accordingly inspected the damaged vehicle and took photographs of it and that after assessing, the surveyor submitted his report to the opposite party-Insurance Company. The complainant in his complaint further stated that after waiting for a reasonable time he found that his claim was not settled by the opposite party-Insurance Company, thus he visited the office of the opposite party-Insurance Company to inquire into the matter. At that time, the complainant was advised by the opposite party-Insurance Company to submit registration certificate along with other documents of the vehicle. On 05.02.2018, the opposite party vide letter dated 05.02.2018 repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that the complainant has violated the provisions of law as laid down under Section 192 of the M.V. Act.

Being aggrieved by the action of the he complainant filed a complaint petition under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the learned District Forum claiming compensation of Rs.1,63,400/- and also interest thereof, etc.

4. The opposite party-Insurance Company has contested the claim of the complainant, the appellant herein, by filing written statement denying the allegations of the complainant. The opposite party-Insurance Company has admitted that the complainant had obtained Insurance Policy of his vehicle from the New India Assurance Company Ltd. and that the Authorized Surveyor of the Insurance Company has done the assessment of the damaged vehicle and also submitted his report on 26.12.2017. The Surveyor assessed the loss of the complainant amounting to Rs.65,934/-. It is further stated by the opposite party-Insurance Company in the written statement that complainant though submitted some documents of his vehicle after the accident, but he did not submit the copy of the registration certificate of his vehicle and that on 08.01.2018, the opposite party-Insurance Company sent a letter to the complainant requesting him to submit the registration certificate of the vehicle, but even thereafter, the complainant did not furnish the same. Situated thus, the opposite party-Insurance Company on his own initiative collected screen report of the vehicle from the State Transport Department and that from the screen report it was found that the vehicle of the complainant was registered with the Transport Department on 30.01.2018, but the vehicle had met with the accident on 28.09.2017. This matter was duly informed to the complainant by the opposite party-Insurance Company by a letter dated 05.02.2018 and by this letter, the complainant was again requested by the opposite party-Insurance Company to submit the valid registration certificate of the vehicle on the date of accident. In reply to the aforesaid letter dated 05.02.2018, the complainant by a letter dated 09.02.2018 requested the opposite party-Insurance Company to review the decision of the opposite party-Insurance Company and settle the claim of the complainant early, but in the said letter, the complainant did not clarify the matter of registration certificate in respect of his vehicle at the time of accident. The opposite party-Insurance Company in written statement has thus prayed for dismissal of the complaint as the complainant did not possess the valid registration certificate of his vehicle when his vehicle had met with an accident on 28.09.2017.
5. In support of the case, the complainant had produced his Voter ID card, Sale Certificate, Temporary Registration Certificate, Registration Certificate issued on 30.01.2018 i.e. after the accident, Insurance Policy, FIR and two letters in photo copies. He also examined himself as P.W.1 and accordingly cross-examined by the opposite party-Insurance Company. 
6. The opposite party-Insurance Company also produced Examination-in-Chief of one witness, namely, Sri Suman Das, Administrative Officer and produced original copy of the Survey Report indicating the loss sustained by the vehicle.
7. Considering the pleadings of the parties as well as the evidence on record, the learned District Forum framed the following points for deciding the case which are as follows:-

1. Whether the complainant possessed valid registration certificate of his vehicle when it met with the accident on 28.09.2017?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation as prayed for? 
8. After hearing the Ld. Counsel for the parties, the learned District Forum in its findings particularly, Para-7 of the impugned judgment stated, inter alia, that

“7. On close examination and perusal of the documents furnished by the complainant particularly the copy of temporary registration (item No. 3 of firisti dt. 11.04.18 submitted by the complainant) we find that the complainant was given temporary registration certificate on 18.08.17 for a period of 30 days. Admittedly the complainant's vehicle met with the accident on 28.09.17. So it is crystal clear that the complainant did not possess valid registration certificate in respect of his vehicle when the vehicle met with the accident on 28.09.17.

In a similar case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.8463/2014 arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.26308/2013 held that as per section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act no person shall drive Motor Vehicle in public place without any registration issued by the Registering Authority in accordance with the provisions laid down under the Motor Vehicles Act (copy of the judgment furnish by the O.P. side in this case vide annexure-E).

It is apparent from the materials available in the case record that the vehicle owned by the Complainant plied on the public road on the day of accident i.e. 28/09/2017 and at that time the vehicle was without registration as its' temporarily registration got expired on 20/09/2017. Plying of such vehicle on public road is prohibited under section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act.”

Finally, in view of the above facts, the learned District Forum dismissed the complaint petition on the ground that the opposite party-Insurance Company rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant.

9. Being aggrieved by the decision of the learned District Forum the complainant filed the instant appeal.
10. Mr. Saha, Ld. Counsel while urging for setting aside the impugned judgment would contend that in Section 192 of the M.V. Act is silent about the rejection of the accidental damage of the vehicle raised by the opposite party-Insurance Company. According to him, as the policy was still valid on the date of accident, the opposite party-Insurance Company is bound to indemnify the loss of the insured caused due to accident of his vehicle. Though he admitted that on the date of accident there was no valid registration of the vehicle insured. He further submits that the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court relied upon by the learned District Forum is not applicable in the instant case, as the fact of that case is totally different than the case in hand.
11. Per contra, Mr. Das, Ld. Counsel appearing for the opposite party-Insurance Company while supporting the impugned judgment would contend that the case in hand is fully covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.8463/2014 arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.26308/2013 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court specifically held that “………..using a vehicle on the public road without any registration is not only an offence punishable under Section 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act but also a fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of policy contract.” He further submits that as per Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act, no person shall drive any motor vehicle in public place without any registration issued by the Registering Authority in accordance with the provisions laid down under the Motor Vehicles Act.
12. We have considered the impugned judgment passed by the learned District Forum as well as the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.8463/2014 (supra). The Hon’ble Apex Court considered almost a similar case wherein the petitioner-complainant of that case had purchased a Mahindra Pick UP BS-II 4WD vehicle and got it insured for an amount of Rs.4,30,037/- with the respondent no.1 therein, M/s. New India Assurance Company Ltd. for the period 12.12.2005 to 11.12.2006 and the said vehicle was temporarily registered for a period of one month, which expired on 11.01.2006 and the vehicle in question therein met with an accident on 02.02.2006 and got damaged. Herein the instant case also, admittedly, after the expiry of the temporary registration, the vehicle in question was met with an accident and even after request of the opposite party-Insurance Company, the complainant, the appellant herein, failed to show any valid registration to satisfy the Authority that the vehicle was plied on the road with valid registration. Thus, according to us, the learned District Forum did not commit any error. Hence, no interference is called for.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merit. No order as to costs.

Send down the records to the learned District Forum, West Tripura, Agartala.

 

 

 

MEMBER State Commission Tripura

MEMBER State Commission Tripura

PRESIDENT State Commission Tripura