Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/554/2018

Dheeraj Khanna - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Devinder Kumar Adv.

01 Aug 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	554/2018
Date of Institution	:	04.10.2018
Date of Decision	:	01.08.2019

 

                                       

                                               

Dheeraj Khanna son of Sh.Harish Khanna, Permanent r/o House no.126-B-11, Samrala Road, Fateh Ganj, Ludhiana, Punjab-141008.

Presently residing at:- House No.351, Khuda Lahora, Chandigarh.

                                ...  Complainant.

Versus

1. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., SCO No.109-110-111, Surendra Building, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager.
2. M/s  Plantinum Auto Sales, SCO No.107-108, Sector 43-B, Chandigarh through its Partner/Proprietor.

…. Opposite Parties.

 

BEFORE: SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

SHRI RAVINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

Argued by

                Sh.Devinder Kumar, Adv. for the complainant

                Sh.R.K.Bashamboo, Adv. for OP No.1

                OP No.2 exparte.

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.         Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that the Honda Activa Scooter bearing temporary registration No.CH-49T-7427 was got insured with OP No.1 for the period from 18.07.2017 to 17.07.2018 vide cover note (Annexure C-2).   It has further been averred that for getting the registration certificate of the vehicle, he visited to the office of DTO, Ludhiana and deposited Rs.420/- against receipt dated 28.07.2017.  However, he could not get the registration of the vehicle as the Punjab Government abolished the post of DTO.  It has further been averred that on 29.08.2017, the vehicle in question was stolen by some unknown persons from Dhanas and intimation thereof was given to the Police who registered the FIR No.135 dated  29.08.2017 (Annexure C-4). The police after investigation has also issued the Non-Traceable Certificate under Section 173 Cr.P.C. (Annexure C-5).  He also intimated OP No.1 regarding the same and submitted the requisite documents in the office of OP No.1.  It has further been averred that OP No.1 has wrongly repudiated the claim vide its letter dated 21.08.2018 on the ground that the vehicle in question was being plied in violation of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act.  He also got served a legal notice dated 14.09.2018 upon the OP No.1 but to no effect.  Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.         In its written statement, OP No.1 while admitting the factual matrix of the case has pleaded that on investigation, it came to light that the temporary registration of the vehicle was issued on 18.07.2017 and the same was expired on 17.08.2017. However, the vehicle was being plied without permanent registration number. It has further been pleaded that as per law before the expiry of the temporary registration number, the owner of the vehicle is required to apply for permanent registration number and not only that he must have the permanent registration number immediately on the date of expiry as the vehicle cannot be left without registration number.  It has further been pleaded that since the vehicle in question on the date of theft was being plied without permanent registration which was violation of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act and therefore, the claim was rightly repudiated. The remaining allegations have been denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3.         Despite due service through registered post, the OP No.2 failed to put in appearance and as a result thereof it was ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide order dated 13.11.2018.
4.         We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and have gone through the documents on record as well as the replication to the written reply of OP-1.
5.         It is an admitted fact that the vehicle insured with OP No.1 was stolen on 29.08.2017 i.e. during the currency of the Insurance Policy. The vehicle in question was purchased on 18.07.2017  and the temporary registration of the vehicle in question was to expire on 17.08.2017.
6.         The only question to be determined in this case is that as to whether the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated by the Insurance Company-OP No.1 or not?
7.         The defence of OP No.1 is that since the vehicle in question was not having permanent registration number on the date of the incident i.e. theft and as such there was violation of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act and the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated.
8.         On the contrary, the Counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant had made all efforts to get the vehicle registered with the concerned registering authority before the expiry of the temporary registration of the vehicle but the vehicle could not be get registered as the Punjab Government had abolished the post of the DTO and therefore, the rejection of the claim by the OP is illegal and unjustified.  This submission of the Counsel for the complainant finds corroboration even from the investigation report dated 18.12.2017 (Annexure R-2) submitted by M/s Unique Associates, Investigator of OP No.1-Company. In the concluding para of the investigation report, the investigator has clearly stated that as per the inquiry made with various registering authorities, the Transport Offices were not accepting the registration fee for new vehicles due to merger of the DTO in RTA.  
9.         It is also established from the receipt dated 28.07.2017 (Annexure C-3) that the complainant had deposited a sum of Rs.420/- towards passing of the vehicle in question with the Punjab Motor Vehicle Department.  However, the registration fee in respect of the vehicle could not be deposited because the Transport Offices were not accepting the registration fee for the new vehicles due to merger of DTO in RTA. This fact of the complainant finds corroboration even from the report of the investigator attached with the written statement of the Insurance Company(OP No.1) and the same is also not disputed by the Insurance Company.
10.         Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the complainant did not make efforts to get the vehicle registered with the registering authority before the expiry of the temporary registration of the vehicle.  However, he could not succeed to get the vehicle registered with the registering authority because the Transport Offices were not accepting the registration fee for the new vehicles due to merger of DTO in RTA.  Had the complainant not make efforts to get the vehicle registered with the registering authority before the expiry of the temporary registration then the position must have been different.
11.         In this view of the matter, the Insurance Company has committed illegality by repudiating the genuine claim of the complainant having the knowledge that the Transport Offices were not accepting the registration fee for the new vehicles due to merger of DTO in RTA and that the complainant has left no stone unturned to get his vehicle registered before the expiry of the temporary registration of the vehicle.
12.         In view of the above discussion, the present complaint deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. Opposite Party No.1 is directed as under ;-

1. To pay the amount of Rs.50,561/- i.e. IDV of the vehicle in question to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from repudiation letter till its actual realization.
2. To pay a sum of Rs.5,500/- towards mental agony and physical harassment.
3. To pay a sum of Rs.7,000/- as litigation expenses.

13.         This order be complied with by OP No.1, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amount at Sr.No.(ii) shall also carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment besides compliance of other directions.
14.         The complaint qua OP No.2 stands dismissed.
15.         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

01/08/2019                                                            sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER