DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 30th day of April 2011
Present : Smt.Seena H, President
: Smt.Preetha G Nair, Member
: Smt.Bhanumathi A.K. Member Dt. Of filing : 07/10/2010
(C.C.No.122/2010)
N.Remdadevi
W/o.C.Sisupalan,
Door No.288, Karthika,
Gokulam Street,
Keralapuram Village,
Koduvayur – 678 501,
Chittur Taluk
Palakkad - Complainant
(By Adv.K.B.Priya)
V/s
The Sr.Divisional Manager
New India Assurance Co.Ltd
Sri Valli Building Complex, II Floor,
Anicode Junction,
Palakkad District
(By Adv.C.Mohanram) - Opposite party
O R D E R
By Smt.SEENA.H, PRESIDENT
Case of the complainant in brief:
Complainant has purchased a motor car on 4/7/2008. The said car was temporarily registered for a period from 4/7/08 to 10/11/08. The complainant has availed a policy from the opposite party for the period from 14/7/08 to 13/7/09. Subsequently the vehicle was permanently registered. On 16/7/08 the said car met with an accident. The surveyor deputed by the opposite party assessed loss for an amount of Rs.24,675/-. The complainant claimed insurance amount from the opposite party. The same was repudiated by the opposite party stating that the vehicle was not duly registered at the time of accident. According to the complainant opposite party has repudiated the claim without valid reason and without considering the fact the vehicle was validly insured with the opposite party. The complainant has spent an amount of Rs.56,000/- for repairing the vehicle. Complainant prays for an order directing opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.56,000/- towards repair charges and an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony.
Opposite party filed version contending the following :
According to the opposite party there is no valid insurance policy at the time of accident. Though the complainant has submitted the proposal form and company has received the payment on 15/7/08, a provisional receipt was issued to the complainant and only a cover note issued in receipt of the amount. The issuance of cover note is not amounting to acceptance of proposal unless and until the proposal is accepted and full premium is received by the competent authority and final receipt is issued.
Opposite party has repudiated the claim only after considering all these aspects. Further the temporary registration obtained by the dealer expired on 10/7/08. As per the Motor Vehicles Act, no person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven at any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered. Hence there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party in handling the claim put forward by the complainant.
Evidence adduce by the complainant consists of the chief affidavit and Ext.A1 – A9. Opposite party also filed chief affidavit and Ext.B1 to B7 were marked on their side.
Issues for our consideration are
Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party ?
If so, what is the relief and costs complainant is entitled to ?
Issue 1 & 2
The specific case of the complainant is that his car was validly insured with the opposite party vide policy No.761102/31/08/1/00002802 w.e.f.14/7/08 to 13/7/09. The said vehicle met with an accident on 16/7/08 and the complainant has incurred an amount of Rs.56,000/- as repair charges. Surveyor deputed by the opposite party assessed loss to the tune of Rs.24,675/-. Grievance of the complainant is that opposite party without any genuine reason repudiated the claim of the complainant. Opposite party on the other hand argued that there was no valid policy at the time of the accident and also the vehicle was not duly registered at the time of accident. Hence the claim was repudiated on genuine grounds only.
Heard both parties and gone through the entire evidence on record.
It is seen that opposite party has denied the existence of a valid policy at the time of accident. The contention of opposite party is that the temporary registration expired on 10/7/08 and permanent registration was taken after the accident. Ext.A4, the original insurance policy produced by the complainant shows that the vehicle bearing chassis No.600142 ERZP 65110 Engine No.475 IDI 05 ERZP 56659 was validly insured with the opposite party for the period from 14/7/08 to 13/7/2009. So the contention of the opposite party that there is no valid insurance is seen to be incorrect.
Now the question to be considered is whether non registration of the vehicle at the time of accident will absolve the liability of the opposite party. It is understood that opposite party has insured the vehicle knowing that the vehicle was not permanently registered. Only Engine No. and chassis no. is noted in the policy certificate. If the opposite party was so particular in following the conditions they would have intimated the same to the insured at the time of receiving the payment of premium itself. Hon’ble National Commission has also expressed such a view in HDFC CHUBB General Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s Ila Gupta & Ors. in I(2007)CPJ274 (NC) .
Hence we are of the view that opposite party is not justified in repudiating claim of the complainant in toto.
Admittedly there is no registration either temporary or permanent at the time of accident. The complainant has claimed an amount of Rs.56,000/- for cost of repair charges. Surveyor has assessed loss to the tune of Rs.24,675/- There is no evidence to disregard the survey report marked as Ext.A7. Hence we are of the view that the complainant is entitled to the amount as assessed by the surveyor. Further Ext.B7, the circular issued by the Head Office of the Insurance Company states that when the insured is able to register the vehicle and bring RC later, company will pay the claim in full after receipt of RC Book.
In view of the above stated facts and circumstances of the case, we allow the complaint.
Opposite party is directed to pay the complainant an amount of Rs.24,675/- (Rupees Twenty four thousand six hundred and seventy five only) along with compensation of Rs.3000/- (Rupees three thousand only) and Rs.1000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as cost of the proceedings. The order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order failing which the whole amount shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till realisation.
Pronounced in the open court on the 30th day of April 2011.
Sd/-
Smt.Seena.H
President
Sd/-
Smt.Preetha G Nair
Member
Sd/-
Smt.Bhanumathi A.K.
Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits marked on the side of the Complainant
Ext.A1 – Copy of sale certificate issued by Tata Motors dtd.4/7/08
Ext.A2 – Temporary certificate No.1484 dt.14/7/08 issued by Hyson Motors Ltd.
Ext.A3 - Copy of Temporary Certificate of Registration issued Motor Vehicle Dept.
Ext.A4 – Certificate of Insurance Policy No.761102/31/08/01/00002802
Ext.A5 – Coy of FIR by SI of Police, Chittur
Ext.A6 – Copy of Site Mahazar prepared by SI of Police, Chittur
Ext.A7 – Copy of Survey Report by Jose N Mathew, Surveyor
Ext.A8 – Copy of request letter sent to Manager, New India Assurance Co. by the
complainant dt.4/11/09
Ext.A9 – Copy of request letter sent to OP by the complainant dt,25/9/08
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party
Ext.B1 – Copy of Sale Certificate issued by Tata Motors dtd.4/7/08
Ext.B2 – Copy of Temporary Certificate of Registration issued Motor Vehicle Dept.
Ext.B3 – Copy of Certificate of Registration issued by Motor Vehicle Dept.
Ext.B4 – Copy of Proposal Form
Ext.B5 series – Copy of letter sent to complainant by the OP dtd.19/1/09 with postal
acknowledgment card
Ext.B6 series – Copy of letter sent to complainant by the OP dtd.27/9/10 with postal
acknowledgment card
Ext.B7 – Copy of instruction for settlement of OD claim in absence of valid registration
of vehicle
Cost – Rs.1,000/- allowed as cost of proceedings.
