DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

Parveen Mittal S/o Sh.Sugan Chand Mittal, H.No.334, Sector 46-A, Chandigarh.

                                                                                    ---Complainant

V E R S U S

1]       The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office-II, SCO No.48-49, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh, through its Divisional Manager

2]       The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Service Centre (Chandigarh RO), SCO 109-111, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh, through its Officer-in-charge.

3]          Swami Automobiles, Plot No.26-B, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh

---Opposite Parties

BEFORE:            SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA                    PRESIDENT

                        SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA                   MEMBER

                        SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU            MEMBER

Argued By:            Sh.Sandeep Suri, Advocate for the complainant

Sh.R.K.Bashamboo, Advocate for the OPs No.1 & 2.

                        OP-3 already exparte. 

PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

1]             Complainant (hereinafter referred to as CC for short) has filed the present complaint against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as OPs for short) on the ground that CC insured his Mahindra & Mahindra vehicle bearing Chassis No.12079 and Engine No.35113, and having paid Rs.23,705/- against the premium amount for the purchase of insurance policy (Ann.C-1).  The insurance was valid from 22.1.2010 to 21.1.2011. 

                That the said vehicle met with an accident on 08.03.2010 and intimation was given to OP-1.  The CC on the directions of OPs No.1 & 2 took the vehicle to the workshop of OP-3. A Surveyor/Loss Assessor was appointed and an assessment with regard to the loss of the vehicle was made.  Thereafter, the CC got the vehicle repaired and paid an amount of Rs.49,400/- on the assurance that the same would be reimbursed to the CC in due process. 

                That as the vehicle being a new vehicle, was allotted a Temporary Registration Number as CH-23(T)6573 (Ann.C-3). That the CC had applied for the permanent registration of the said vehicle after the expiry of the first one month’s duration for which the temporary registration certificate was effective.  However, the CC in the meantime paid for the renewal of the temporary registration certificate and applied for permanent registration certificate of the said vehicle. 

                The CC is aggrieved by the act of repudiation of his claim by the OPs on the ground of non-registration of the said vehicle after the expiry of temporary registration certificate.  CC prays for the refund of Rs.49,400/- along with interest @18% per annum from 19.03.2010, compensation of Rs.25,000/- and Rs10,000/- against cost of litigation.    

2]             On notice, OPs No.1 & 2 filed their collective versions.  However, OP-3 though having been served preferred not to appear in the Forum and was subsequently proceeded against exparte vide order dated 25.1.2011.

                OP-1 & 2 though admitted the facts of the complaint as being part of record.  They however contested the claim of the CC on the ground that the CC applied for the permanent registration of the vehicle in question, after the expiry of temporary registration number and has thus acted against the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act.  They have also cited Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which speaks that no person can drive any motor vehicle and no owner of motor vehicle can permit the vehicle to be driven in public place until and unless it is registered with registration authority and vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner.  As the policy of insurance is issued under the provisions of Motor vehicle Act and the complainant was bound to ply the said vehicle only as per the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act. 

                The claim of the CC is also contested on the ground that one Sh.Survinder Singh, was appointed as Surveyor by the OPs, who had assessed the loss of the vehicle in question to the tune of Rs.37,884/- after taking into consideration the aspect of depreciation. The value of salvage too was to be deducted from the total loss, which was assessed at Rs.1000/-.  Hence, the claim of the CC for Rs.49,400/- is also not maintainable in totality. 

3]             Parties led their respective evidences.

4]             Having gone through the entire complaint and version of OPs and the evidence of the parties, we are of the considered view that the CC is successful in proving deficiency in service on the part of OPs on the following grounds:-

i)      It is very much clear from the complaint of the CC, as mentioned under Para-4 (Page 2) of the complaint, wherein the CC had himself admitted in his communication, dated 03.05.2010 that the CC could not get the vehicle in question registered within the specified time period of temporary registration certificate due to some unavoidable circumstances. 

        It is also mentioned that the CC got his vehicle registered in his name and enclosed the copy of Registration Certificate duly issued by the Registering Authority, Chandigarh along with letter dated 03.05.2010, which clearly shows that the delay did not disqualify the CC in getting the vehicle registered.

The CC has annexed a copy of registration certificate, which clearly shows the date of issue as 03.04.2010. This one fact is proved beyond any doubt that the CC was in possession of the original registration certificate on the date when the OPs repudiated the claim of the CC vide their letter dated 12.04.2010. 

ii)        The point in question is that the CC having admitted himself of a delay in applying for registration of the said vehicle during the effective period of temporary registration certificate could be the ground of denying the CC of his claim.  As such, this one aspect is not the ground for denial of registration of the said vehicle with the Registering Authority i.e. the CC very much qualified himself by tendering all the relevant documents and fees required for the registration of the vehicle with the concerned authorities and subsequently the vehicle was registered and given the Regd. NO. as CH-01-AB-4934 and the same was issued on 03.04.2010 (Ann.C-5). 

We feel that the CC having qualified in getting the registration of the said vehicle done, the OPs have no reasons to repudiate the claim of the CC on the ground that there was a delay in getting the registration done as the responsibility of the CC was only to apply for the same and was not involved in the process of registration, the authority for which registered with the office of Registering Authority. 

iii)            OPs have also failed to bring on record as to what terms & conditions of the policy have not been complied by the CC, which were in his knowledge and the same were supplied by the OPs to the CC.  It is very much clear from the file that OPs themselves were in  possession of the policy document, which was not supplied to the CC and is Exhibited as R-1 and is in original tendered along with the Written Statement of the OPs. 

iv)            OPs have not come up with any excuse on their part as to why the said document, containing the terms & conditions of policy, was not supplied to the CC at the time of receiving the premium amount of Rs.23,705/-.  The CC could not be in the knowledge of the terms & conditions mentioned in the document not supplied to him and which stand proved to be in the possession of the OPs at the time when cause of action arose.

v)     Our above view are fortified by the judgment of Hon’ble  Jharkhand SCDRC, Ranchi in case “RAJENDRA PRASAD TIWARY Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY & ORS., First Appeal No. 561 of 2003, Decided on 28.1.2004, I (2007) CPJ 391,wherein it is observed in a similar case that the claim of the CC cannot be repudiated for not having original registration certificate, which was under due process of issueance. It has been categorically held :-

“So far as the non-production of the registration certificate is concerned, as stated above, admittedly, the registration was not done and under the Motor Vehicles Act, it is incumbent upon the owner to get the vehicle registered and then ply on the road. The question now arises if the vehicle is not registered, the Insurance Company can deny the claim. It may be mentioned here that no such terms and conditions have been mentioned under the policy, albeit the Motor Vehicles Act envisages that the registration of the vehicle is mandatory one and if the registration is not made within the prescribed time even, then registration can be obtained by paying late fee of Rs.100. In that view of the matter, we are of the view that even non registration of the vehicle cannot be a ground for repudiation of the just claim under the policy.” 

5]             Hence, on the above mentioned observations, we allow the present complaint and direct OPs No.1 & 2 to jointly & severally pay Rs.37,884/- to the complainant, as assessed by the Surveyor, along with interest @9% p.a. from the date of lodging of claim.  OPs No.1 & 2 are also jointly & severally burdened with a consolidated amount of compensation of Rs.25,000/- along with Rs.7000/- as costs of litigation. 

                    This order be complied with by OP-1 & 2 within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which OPs No.1 & 2 shall jointly & severally be liable to pay an interest @18% p.a. on the total amount of claim along with compensation that stands against them after completion of 30 days, besides the cost of litigation.

                However, the complaint qua OP-3 stands dismissed.

                Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

30.08.2011

                                                           (LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

(MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER 

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER