DATE OF DISPOSAL: 25.06.2024
PER: SRI SATISH KUMAR PANIGRAHI, PRESIDENT:
The factual matrix of the case is that the complainant has filed this consumer complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties (in short the O.Ps.) and for redressal of her grievance before this Commission.
2. One Sujit Kumar Sahu, who was son of the complainant, had purchased a new Bajaj Pulsar Motor cycle on 13.03.2019 from the O.P.No.1 being financed by the Bajaj Finance Ltd. O.P.No.3. The O.P.No.1 had issued tax invoice, copy of the insurance policy as well as other papers to the son of complainant and O.P.No.1 also assured to furnish the Registration certificate of the above Motor cycle. The tax invoice and insurance policy of the motor cycle vide engine No. DKYCKL76670 AND CHASIS No. MD2A13EY2KCL06470. The O.P.No.1 being the agent of the O.P.No.2 i.e. Magma HDI General Insurance Co. ltd had taken the premium of Rs.9,248/- including the premium for P.A. coverage for owner driver and on the date of purchase i.e. 13.03.2019 issued the insurance policy vide policy No.P0019400020/4113/113107 dated 13.03.2019, period of insurance (own damages) from 13.03.2019 to 12.03.2020 and period of insurance (3rd pay liability) from 13.03.2019 to 12.03.2024 issued in respect of the above motor cycle, and towards the PA coverage for owner driver Mr. Sujit Kumar Sahu for an amount of Rs. 15,00,000/-. The O.P.No.1 had taken extra amount from Sujit Kumar Sahu (the son of complainant) for registration of the motor cycle. On the date of delivery of the above alleged motor cycle, the O.P.No.1 had furnished the invoice as well as the copy of the insurance policy, and promised to give the Registration certificate soon after registration of the vehicle by the RTA Ganjam and in the month of July 2019 the O.P.No.1 had given the R.C.Book. On 04.06.2019 at about 6.30 P.M. Sujit Kumar Sahu who is the son of the complainant faced a road accident with an unknown vehicle at Gopalpur College square, Gopalpur, Dist: Ganjam. Soon after accident, he was shifted to M.K.C.G. Medical college & Hospital, Berhampur and thereafter admitted at Kalinga Hospital and discharged on 05.07.2019 and when the health condition of Sujit Kumar Sahu became complicated on dated 08.07.2019, he was brought to the MKCG Medical colleges and Hospital, Berhampur and died on the same day i.e. 08.07.2019. The deceased had a valid and effective deriving license to drive/ply his motor cycle on the date and time of accident. Due to busy in the treatment of Sujit Kumar Sahu, neither the complaint nor any member of her family could lodge FIR before the concerned Police station, but after his death FIR was lodged before the concerned Gopalpur Police station, Dist: Ganjam who registered a case U/s 279/304(A) of I.P.C. vide P.S. case No.72/dated 09.07.2019. Accordingly the incident was inquired, postmortem was conducted the motor cycle was seized and the said PS case number is corresponding to GR No. 970/2019 of SDJM Berhampur, Dist: Ganjam. The above matter was intimated to the Insurance Company claiming cost of the damages of the vehicle and the insurance company visited to the spot, estimated the damage of the vehicle, and at lasts rejected the claim of the applicant. Inspite of intimation, representation as well as telephone requests, and as per the IRDA guidelines as well as the contract of the insurance policy, the O.P.No.2 did not pay the claim of Rs.15,00,000/- and the complainant spent Rs.5500/- towards the repair of the motor cycle. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps the complainant prayed to direct the O.Ps to pay the claim of the complainant as per the insurance policy No.P0019400020/4113/113107 valid for the period from 13.03.2019 along with cost of damages of the motor cycle with 18% interest per annum in the interest of justice.
4. The Commission admitted the case and issued notice to the Opposite Parties.
5. The O.P.No.2 filed written version through his advocates. It is stated that the averments made in the complaint are not all true and those are not specifically admitted herein and deemed to have been denied and the complainant is put to strict proof of the same. The case is wrong joinder of O.P. and for that the complaint is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed. The complainant is also not a consumer, as there is no such cause of action as per the insurance policy terms and conditions. In the present case on receipt of PA claim intimation, we appointed an independent investigator to ascertain the exact cause and nature of death. We are in receipt of Investigation report and on perusal of same it has been observed that Late Sujit Kumar Sahu was driving his vehicle bearing No. OD-07-AB-7268 at the material time of accident which was insured with us vide policy No. P0019400020/4113/113107subject to certain terms and conditions. But on perusal of documents it has been observed that at the time of alleged accident the vehicle bearing No. OD-07-AB-7268 was not registered in accordance with section 39of MV Act 1988, which in turn violates the terms and condition of insurance policy. The deceased purchased the motor cycle on 13.03.2019 from the O.P.No.1 and plied the alleged motor cycle without registration which is violation under the provisions of the M.V.Act and the deceased plied the same even after long lapse of more than 80 days of the purchase of the alleged vehicle. Section-39 of M.V.Act: 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 the provision prescribed under the M.V.Act. Soon after the purchase of the motor cycle, the deceased person has not submitted any application and required fee in the concerned RTA for the registration of the above alleged motor cycle as contemplated under the Section-38 of the Act. Hence in the instance case the deceased was plying an unregistered motor cycle on the public road is not only an office punishable under Section-192 of the M.V.Act but also a fundamental breach of the terms and condition of the policy contract and hence the O.P. Insurance Company rightly repudiated the claim and hence the present claim is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed. The O.,P. is a Financial Organization issuing the insurance policy basing on the contract on good faith i.e. insurance contract depends upon the concept of “Uberrima fides” i.e. most abundant good faith. The insured must observe most perfect good faith towards insurer. The Insurance Company is extending its cooperation to its valuable customers for payment of compensation as per the terms and conditions of the policy. Hence in the present disputes question of deficiency of service on the part of this O.P. does not arise. The complainants have not approached with clean hands and they have played fraud, have misled, has adhere to all such frivolous activities, has deliberately suppressed the material evidence, has concealed the truth for the purpose of the claim. Hence the complaint is not entitled for any such relief. Hence the O.P.No.2 prayed to dismiss the case in the best interest of justice.
6. The opposite party no.1 and no.3 have neither appeared nor filed any objection in the instant case. To comply the notice, ample of opportunities were provided to the Opposite Party Nos. 1 & 3 but all in vein.
7. On the date of hearing Advocates for Complainant and O.P.No.2 were present. The Commission heard argument at length, perused the complaint petition, written version, evidence on affidavit, written argument and documents available in the case record.
On analysis of the evidences adduced by the parties, it is apparent from the case record that, on the material date of accident the vehicle was not registered but the insurance policy was in force. It is no doubt that, in the instant case, the O.P.No.2 the Insurance Company has insured the vehicle on the basis of the chassis number and engine number of the vehicle but not as per the registration number of the vehicle. The claim in the context of an accident, involving a vehicle, the temporary registration of which had expired, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held in a Land Mark Judgment in Narendra Singh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd reported in AIR 2014 SC 3761, the insurer was not liable to pay assured amount to the insured.
On the date of accident the temporary registration of vehicle was also over and permanent registration certificate was also not issued to the owner of the vehicle. It was submitted that, the Complainant has deposited the amount for the registration of vehicle while purchasing the vehicle to the O.P.No.1. It is mandatory under Section 44 of M.V.Act to produce the documents of the vehicle for inspection before the Registration Authority immediately after sale of the vehicle in accordance to the circular of the Transport Commissioner-cum-Chairman, State Transport Authority, Odisha Cuttack in Circular No.2 of 2013 vide Memo No.:15249/Dated:04.11.2013. In the instant case, the Opposite Party No.1 being dealer of the vehicle collected all relevant documents and statutory fees from the deceased Sujit Kumar Sahu on the date of sale. It is corroborative from the evidence on affidavit of the complainant to suggest that the deceased Sujit Kumar Sahu had paid amount for registration of vehicle through Opposite Party no.1 but the same was not done timely. It was registered with RTA, Ganjam on 12.07.2018 after accident occurred. In view of the Circular (Supra), it is crystal clear that, the opposite party no.1 has not rendered the appropriate service to the owner of the vehicle and the complainant proved that there was deficient in services on the part of the opposite party no.1. If the permanent registration number of the vehicle would have issued earlier, the complainant would have availed the insurance benefits from the opposite party no.2.
Considering the above discussion in the case, the Commission allowed the Complaint against the opposite party no.1 and dismissed against the opposite party no. 2 and 3. The opposite party no.1 is directed to pay the personal accident coverage for owner driver Mr. Sujit Kumar Sahu including repair cost of the vehicle of Rs.15,05,500/- to the complainant together with compensation and litigation cost carries interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filling of the case i.e., 28.05.2020 till the date of actual payment within 45 days from the date of receipt of the Order. In the event of non-compliance of the above order, the Complainant is at liberty to realize the entire dues which carries interest @ 12% per annum from the date of inception of case till the actual date of realization of said dues in accordance to the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
This case is disposed of accordingly.
The Judgment be uploaded on the www.confonet.nic.in for the perusal of the parties.
A certified copy of this Judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
The file is to be consigned to the record room along with a copy of this Judgment.
Pronounced on 25.06.2024
