Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 431.
Instituted on : 27.07.2017.
Decided on : 24.01.2019.
Pardeep Malik, age 35 years, son of Sh. Jagbir Singh, Resident of H.No. 260, IInd Floor, Sector-14, Rohtak also at 40, 1st Floor, Sant Nagar, New Delhi, Mobile No. 9911269038.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
1 The New India Assurance Company Limited, 1215, 12th Floor, Naurang House, 21, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001 through its Manager.
2 The New India Assurance Company Limited, Divisional Office: 313, Model Town, Delhi Road, Rohtak through its Divisional Manager.
3 Jagmohan Motors Ltd., Sonepat Road, Rohtak through its M.D.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
SMT. SAROJ BALA BOHRA, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Pardeep Mittal, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. R.K. Bhardwaj Advocate for OPs No. 1 and 2.
Ms. Chetna, Advocate for OP No. 3.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:1. 1. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant had purchased a vehicle i.e. Car Maruti Swift Dezire VDI from OP No. 3 having temporary registration No. HR-99-ZP-(T)-0340 bearing engine No.2877309 and Chassis No.980533 and the said vehicle was duly insured by the OPs No. 1 and 2 through OP No. 3 vide policy No.98000031160304324539 issued on 23.08.2016 which is valid for the period from 23.08.2016 to 22.08.2017. The IDV of the said vehicle is Rs.6,92,363/-. Due to some problem complainant could not applied for registration of said vehicle within 30 days from the date of its purchase, however, in the last week of October, 2016 the complainant applied for registration of said vehicle. In the intervening night of 28/29.10.2016 the said vehicle of the complainant was stolen by some unknown person and on 29.10.2016 he registered an FIR No.032106 under Section 379 of IPC. The complainant submitted all requisite documents including copy of FIR upto the satisfaction of OPs. But the OPs No. 1 and 2 repudiated his claim vide letter dated 17.02.2017 on the ground that on the date of theft, said vehicle was not registered with registering authority. That complainant requested the OPs to pass the claim and also sent a legal notice dated 23.06.2017 to the OPs but to no effect. That the act of opposite parties is illegal and there is deficiency in service. As such, it is prayed that OPs may kindly be directed to pay the alleged claim amount Rs.6,92,363/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum w.e.f. 29.10.2016 till actual realization and Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation and Rs.51,000/- as litigation expenses as explained in relief clause.
2 After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties No. 1 and 2 in its reply has submitted that the vehicle of the complainant was stolen on dated 28.10.2016 and the intimation of the same was given on dated 02.11.2016, so, there is a delay in giving the intimation to the OPs. It is further submitted that the complainant has wrongly mentioned that due to family problem, he could not apply for registration within 30 days from the date of purchase. That at the time of theft, the complainant had no registration certificate of the said vehicle. He even did not pay registration fee of the vehicle in the authority. As such no claim was rightly passed by the insurance company because at the time of accident the complainant was plying the vehicle without Registration Certificate. That there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and as such dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3 OP No. 3 also in its reply has submitted that it was the duty of the complainant to apply for registration of the said vehicle within time. It is further submitted that OP No. 3 is not liable to pass any claim because the vehicle was insured with OPs No. 1 and 2. It is denied that any legal notice was sent to the OP No. 3, so, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No. 3 and as such prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua the OP No. 3.
4. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C12 and has closed his evidence on dated 25.04.2018. Ld. counsel for the OPs No. 1 and 2 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 & Ex.R6 and closed his evidence on 21.09.2018. Ld. Counsel for the OP No. 3 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW3/A and documents Ex.R3/1 to Ex.R3/8 and closed his evidence on dated 21.09.2018.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that the claim of the complainant has been repudiated on the ground that on the date of accident, vehicle was not registered with the registration authority. Ld. counsel for the OP has placed reliance upon the law III(2014)ACC890(SC) titled Narinder Singh Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., III(2017)CPJ 335(NC) titled as Ramesh Patel Vs. Bajaj Alliankz Gen. Insurace Co. Ltd. & Anr., 1(2018)CPJ 61(Har.) titled as UIIC Vs.Vinod Kumar & Anr. but the same are not fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of case in view of the law relied upon in II(2018)CPJ46 NC titled as National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shyam Indus whereby Hon’ble National Commission has held that: “At the time of insurance subject vehicle was unregistered-Despite that insurance company provided insurance cover to subject vehicle, without insisting for its registration, temporarily or permanent, before accepting proposal for insurance. Insurance company cannot take advantage of offence under Section 192 read with Section 39 of MV Act committed by insured by driving vehicle from his residence for hospital much earlier to theft of vehicle which was parked in parking lot of hospital. For prosecution under Section 192 read with section 39 of MV Act, complainant could be fined between Rs.2000/- to Rs.5000/-Denial of insurance cover to extent of Rs.631750/- for violation of Section 39 read with Section 192 MV Act to complainant would amount to imposing a punishment much higher than punishment prescribed under Section 192 of MV Act-Repudiation not justified”. In view of the aforesaid law which is fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case, it is observed that the repudiation of claim by the opposite party is unjustified. Moreover, as per document Ex.C3, the complainant’s vehicle was passed by the District Inspector for the registration of vehicle on dated 22.10.2016. In this way it is very much proved that the process of registration was started by the complainant and the MVI of Registration Authority inspected the vehicle and traced the Chassis number of the vehicle on form No.20 i.e. form of Registration of vehicle. As such complainant is entitled for the claim as per IDV of the vehicle.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and it is directed that opposite party No.1 & 2 shall pay the amount of Rs.692363/-(Rupees six lac ninety two thousand three hundred sixty three only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 27.07.2017 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.
8. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
24.01.2019.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Ved Pal Hooda, Member.
……………………………….
Saroj Bala Bohra, Member.
