DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.541 of 26-11-2010 Decided on 15-04-2011
Iqbal Singh, aged about 30 years, s/o Sh.Roor Singh, resident of H.No. 16308, St. No.13/9, Dhillon Colony, Barnala Road, Bathinda. .......Complainant
Versus The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Registered & H.O. Oriental House, A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi-10002, through its M.D./Chairman. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Regional Office: SCO 109-110-111, Surrendra Building, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office, Bank Bazar, Bathinda, through its Divisional Manager.
......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President. Sh.Amarjeet Paul, Member. Present:- For the Complainant: Sh.Rajneesh Rampal, counsel for the complainant. For Opposite parties: Sh.Sunder Gupta, counsel for opposite parties. ORDER
VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended up-to-date (Here-in-after referred to as 'Act'). The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is the owner of Verna Car, having Chassis No.MALCN 41VLAM081491*A, Engine No.D4FA8H708785 and Temporary No.PB-03R-(T)-8893. He has purchased the aforesaid car for a sum of Rs.8,19,416/- and got it insured with the opposite parties vide Insurance Cover Note No.CHD-C 874648, w.e.f. 04.02.2010 to 03.02.2011 for the sum of Rs.7,78,445/- on the payment of premium of Rs.20,199/-. The aforesaid car of the complainant met with an accident on 30.04.2010 at about 10.00 P.M. on Bathinda-Barnala Road, within the area of village Bhucho Khurd, P.S.Cantt., Bathinda and DDR No.27 dated 01.05.2010 was lodged. The complainant lodged the insurance claim with the opposite party No.3 vide claim No.233200/31/201/1138. The opposite parties appointed the surveyor and loss assessor to assess the loss. The said surveyor conducted the survey and assessed the loss to the said car. Since, the car in question has been badly damaged in the aforesaid accident, as such the officials of the opposite parties offered the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.2,99,500/- full and final settlement of the total claim of the complainant + damaged vehicle i.e the vehicle in question was to be retained by the complainant and to be got repaired of his own to which the complainant gave the consent and accordingly, the officials of the opposite parties obtained the signature of the complainant on the consent letter dated 10.07.2010 for the payment of Rs.2,99,500/- on cash loss repair basis + Damaged vehicle and thereafter, the complainant has been requesting the opposite parties to make the payment of the said amount so that the complainant may be able to get the said car repaired but the opposite party No.3 issued a letter dated 30.08.2010 to the complainant repudiating the claim of the complainant alleging therein that the registration of the said car is later to the date of accident. The said repudiation letter is totally wrong as registration of the car in question later to the date of accident has nothing to do with the sanctioning of the insurance claim because the car in question was not even got registered by the complainant at the time of obtaining the insurance by the complainant neither any such objection was raised by the opposite parties at the time of obtaining the signature of the complainant on the consent letter for the claim of Rs.2,99,500/- on account of repair charges + damaged vehicle. The complainant further alleged that the matter regarding non registration of the car is only a violation of Motor Vehicle Act and has already been later condoned by the Registering Authorities on payment of fine etc. There is legal and valid insurance on the date of accident and the opposite parties are bound to sanction the insurance claim of the complainant but the same has been repudiated by the opposite parties. The complainant has also got served a legal notice dated 21.09.2010, posted on 22.09.2010 upon the opposite parties but the opposite parties sent a reply to the said notice. The opposite parties have alleged in their reply to the notice that the competent authority of the opposite parties has recommended for settlement of the claim on non-standard basis at the rate of 75% of total recommended claim by the surveyor and has recommended for settlement of the claim of the complainant for a sum of Rs.2,24,625/- and further replied that the lawful claim of the complainant is being settled within few days. The vehicle in question is lying in damaged condition for the last more than six months and the condition of the car in question has further deteriorated. In the reply to the notice, the opposite parties conveyed the complainant that the claim would be settled within few days but further a period of more than 1-1/4 month has been lapsed and the complainant has not received any response from the opposite parties when ultimately the opposite parties have flatly refused to accede to the request of the complainant. Hence, the complainant has filed this complaint. 2. The opposite parties have filed their joint written statement and pleaded that the complainant had purchased Verna Car from Hyundai Motors India Limited, having Chassis No.MALCN 41VLAM081491*A, Engine No.D4FA8H708785 and Temporary No.PB-03R-(T)-8893 for a sum of Rs.8,19,436/- and the said car insured with the opposite parties vide Cover Note No.CHD-C-874648 w.e.f. 04.02.2010 to 03.02.2011 with IDV of Rs.7,78,445/- but the complainant has failed to get the insured vehicle registered with any Registering Authority for regular registration number upto the date of accident i.e. upto 30.04.2010 and as per provisions of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles act, 1988, no person shall drive any motor vehicle and owner of motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place, unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act and since the aforesaid vehicle was not registered with any Registering Authority till the date of accident nor any fee for getting the aforesaid vehicle registered with any Registering Authority has been deposited till the date of accident which is violation of Motor Vehicles Act and since the aforesaid vehicle was not registered with any Registering Authority till the date of accident nor any fee for getting the aforesaid vehicle registered with any Registering Authority has been deposited till the date of accident which is violation of Motor Vehicles Act and Rules as well as the terms and conditions of the policy. On receipt of intimation regarding the accident of insured vehicle, Er. Vinod Kumar Goyal was deputed for spot survey who submitted his report dated 06.05.2010 with the opposite parties on 11.05.2010. Thereafter, final survey was got conducted by Er. Chander Shekher, who submitted his report dated 16.07.2010 and has assessed the net loss to the tune of Rs.2,99,500/- on cash loss repair basis and the complainant has also issued a certificate to this effect on non-judicial stamp paper duly notarized agreeing to accept the aforesaid amount as full and final settlement of his claim but during investigation, it was found that the aforesaid insured vehicle purchased by the complainant on 17.02.2010 and the same met with an accident on 30.04.2010 but till the date of accident, no permanent registration certificate regarding the insured vehicle was obtained nor any fee for registration of the vehicle was deposited, so the competent authority recommended the settlement of the claim on non standard basis at the rate of 75% of the total recommended claim by the surveyor and accordingly, the competent authority recommended for settlement of the claim of the complainant for Rs.2,24,625/- on 20.08.2010 and this intimation was received by the Divisional Office of the opposite parties at Bathinda. The opposite parties have further pleaded that they are not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant as he has violated the terms and conditions of the policy as well as provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act. 3. Parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings. 4. Arguments heard. Record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused. 5. Admittedly, the complainant had purchased one Verna Car and got it insured with the opposite parties vide Insurance Cover Note No.CHD-C874648, w.e.f. 04.02.2010 to 03.02.2011 for the sum of Rs.7,78,445/- after paying the premium of Rs.20,199/-. The aforesaid car of the complainant met with an accident on 30.04.2010 at about 10.00 P.M. on Bathinda-Barnala Road, within the area of village Bhucho Khurd, P.S.Cantt., Bathinda and DDR No.27 dated 01.05.2010 was lodged. The complainant lodged the insurance claim with the opposite party No.3 vide claim No.233200/31/201/1138 who appointed the surveyor and loss assessor to assess the loss to the vehicle. The said surveyor conducted the survey and assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.2,99,500/-. The car in question has been badly damaged in the aforesaid accident, as such the officials of the opposite parties offered the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.2,99,500/- as full and final settlement of the total claim of the complainant + damaged vehicle i.e the vehicle in question was to be retained by the complainant and to be got repaired of his own to which the complainant gave the consent and accordingly, the officials of the opposite parties obtained the signature of the complainant on the consent letter dated 10.07.2010 for the payment of Rs.2,99,500/- on cash loss repair basis + Damaged vehicle for which, the complainant has given his consent and the complainant was agreed accept the offer of Rs.2,99,500/- on cash loss repair basis + damaged vehicle as full and final settlement of his claim and issued a certificate to this effect on non-judicial stamp paper duly notarized agreeing to accept the aforesaid amount as full and final settlement of his claim but the claim of the complainant has been repudiated on the ground as the complainant has not got registered his vehicle till the date of accident i.e. on 30.04.2010. 6. The complainant has sent a legal notice dated 21.09.2010, posted on 22.09.2010 upon the opposite parties. In reply to this notice, the opposite parties informed the complainant that the vehicle met with an accident on 30.04.2010 but till date of the accident, no permanent registration certificate regarding the insured vehicle was obtained nor any fee for registration of the vehicle was deposited, so the competent authority recommended the settlement of the claim on non standard basis at the rate of 75% of the total recommended claim by the surveyor and accordingly, the competent authority recommended for settlement of the claim of the complainant for Rs.2,24,625/- on 20.08.2010 and this intimation was received by the Divisional Office of the opposite parties at Bathinda. The opposite parties have specifically denied in their reply that the claim of the complainant has been repudiated rather they have conveyed that the lawful claim of the complainant is being settled within few days. 7. A perusal of documents placed on file shows that the complainant has already paid the full amount towards the loan to the State Bank of Patiala who has also issued a certificate Ex.C-13 and Ex.C-14 to the complainant that nothing is pending in the loan account of the complainant. When the vehicle in question met with an accident, it was not registered as per agreement under Motor Vehicle Act. Earlier, the claim of the complainant was settled to the tune of Rs. 2,99,500/- but on investigation, it was found that the vehicle had not been registered. The claim was repudiated. The opposite parties have submitted that this is breach of terms and conditions and violations of the Motor Vehicle Act and rules. 8. In such circumstances, when the complainant purchased the insurance from the opposite parties, i.e. Insurance Company have never bothered to see whether the vehicle was permanently registered or not. Now, at the time of paying the claim, they cannot raise such hinderences and go into the technicalities. Moreover, the opposite parties have not shown any condition in the policy that the insurance can only be purchased after the permanent registration of the vehicle. The complainant has already given consent of Rs.2,99,500/- as taken by the opposite parties but on enquiry, it was found that the vehicle was not registered as under Section 39 of Motor Vehicle Act that :- No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor 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 this Chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner : Provides that nothing in this section shall apply to a motor vehicle in possession of a dealer subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government.” No doubt, Section 39 is applicable on the complainant the opposite parties have insured the vehicle without bothering about the fact that it has been registered or not. Once they have insured it, they cannot shed their liability to pay the claim to the complainant 9. Hence, the complainant is entitled to get 75% of the total claim on non standard basis as the vehicle was not registered. Therefore, this complaint is accepted with Rs.5,000/- as cost and compensation. The opposite parties are directed to pay the claim to the tune of Rs.2,24,625/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of signing of the consent letter i.e. 10.07.2010 Ex.C-22 till its realization on non standard basis within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 10. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned for record. '
Pronounced in open Forum 15-04-2011 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni) President
(Amarjeet Paul) Member |
