BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Shri Tarlochan Singh aged about 75 years (Senior Citizen) s/o late Shri Chamel Singh r/o House No.638, Sector 8, Chandigarh, UT.

….…Complainant

                           V E R S U S

1.      Union Territory of Chandigarh/Chandigarh Administration, through its Deputy Commissioner, Estate Office, Sector 17, Chandigarh UT 160017.

2.      Registration & Licensing Authority (R&LA), UT Chandigarh through the Registration & Licensing Officer, Chandigarh Administration, Sector 17, Chandigarh UT 160017.

3.      The New India Assurance Company Limited through its Divisional Manager, SCO Nos.37-38, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh UT 160017.

                                  ..…Opposite Parties

CORAM:  SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL        PRESIDENT

              SH. RAJINDER SINGH GILL  MEMBER

Argued by: Sh. Neeraj Pal Sharma, Adv. for complainant.

                Mrs. Pratima Arora, Govt. Pleader for OPs 1 & 2.

Sh. Rajesh K. Sharma, Adv. for OP-3.

PER SHRI JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDENT

             Succinctly put, the complainant, purchased a Mahindra Scorpio car and got the same insured with the OP-3 for the period 1.7.2008 to 30.6.2009.  On 2.12.2008 the vehicle in question while being driven by Jaspal Singh, a friend of the complainant, met with an accident regarding which FIR No.290 dated 2.12.2008 was registered.  He lodged a formal/written claim with the OP-3 alongwith all relevant documents.  Subsequently, on the asking of OP-3 he moved an application before OP-2 on 7.1.2009 asking as to whether the car was registered as a transport vehicle or as a private use vehicle but no clear cut classification was provided.  OP-3 vide their letter dated 17.3.2009 informed the complainant that the car in question was insured as private vehicle, however, the registration certificate issued by the OP-2 mentioned the class of vehicle to be LMV-T and as such the fitness ceased to exist on 10.11.2007. Thereafter in order to save his claim from being rejected he deposited the road tax of Rs.5040/- with  OP-2 vide receipt dated 24.3.2009 alongwith penalty under the Motor Vehicles Act and informed about the same to OP-3 vide letter dated 30.3.2009.  However, the OP-3 vide their letter dated 31.3.2009 informed that since the complainant failed to submit the renewed registration certificate/fitness for the vehicle, hence the claim was closed as no claim.  Thereafter OP-2 issued registration certificate bearing No.947 on 9.4.2009 to the complainant clearly mentioning therein that the vehicle in question bore the class of LMV-NT, validity of which was from 11.11.2005 till 10.11.2007 and further renewal w.e.f. 24.3.2009 to 23.3.2020.  He represented to the OP-3 vide letter dated 22.4.2009. However, OP-3 vide their letter dated 17.6.2009 informed that since the freshly submitted registration certificate of the car was renewed w.e.f 24.3.2009 to 23.3.2020 and without any written confirmation from OP-2 whether the certificate was valid on the date of accident the claim could not be reconsidered and closed the claim. Hence this complaint alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

2.             In their written reply OPs 1 & 2 submitted that the complainant got the registration certificate issued on 11.11.2005 which was valid upto 10.11.2007 and the road tax was paid by him for one year only i.e. 11.11.2005 to 10.11.2006.  It has been stated that as per rules the renewal documents could be submitted by the consumer 60 days prior to the expiry of RC but he failed to do so and the same were deposited by him on 24.3.2009 i.e. after expiry of more than 16 months and the RC was renewed from 24.3.2009 having validity upto 20.3.2020.   It has been submitted that on the date of accident i.e. 2.12.2008 neither the complainant was having valid RC nor the road tax was paid by him.  It  has been admitted that the complainant paid the road tax of the vehicle alongwith penalty on 24.3.2009 which was due from 11.11.2006 and the RC after completion of formalities was issued to him on 9.4.2009. Denying all the material allegations of the complainant and pleading that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. 

3.             In their separate written reply OP-3 admitted the factual matrix but it is submitted that on receipt of information regarding damage to the vehicle they deputed their surveyor and loss assessor to do the survey and during inspection it was found that the complainant had got his vehicle registered with the Registering & Licensing Authority Chandigarh for the period from 11.11.2005 to 10.11.2007 and got the same renewed w.e.f. 24.3.2009 only and thus the same was not validly registered on the date of accident i.e. 2.12.2008.  The surveyor vide his final survey report dated 20.2.2009 assessed the loss to the vehicle at Rs.1,22,527.43. It has been stated that as the registration certificate supplied by the complainant had already expired and the road tax of the vehicle was not paid since 11.11.2006, hence the claim was rightly closed as ‘No Claim’.  Denying all the material allegations of the complainant and pleading that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

4.             Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5.             We have heard the Learned Counsel the complainant, OP-3 and Govt. Pleader for OP -1 and OP-2 and have also perused the record. 

6.             The contention of the OPs is that the complainant is not entitled to compensation firstly because the registration certificate of the vehicle had already expired before the date of accident and in view of Rule 52(3) of the Motor Vehicle Rules 1989 it could not be used in any public place until its certificate of registration was renewed and secondly that road tax had not been paid by the complainant after 10.11.2006 due to which also the vehicle could not be plied on the road.  We do not find any merit in this contention.  The certificate of registration Annexure C-1 shows that the vehicle was registered as LMV T and the registration was valid from 11.11.2005 to 10.11.2007.  It is admitted by OP-1 and OP-2 in para number 23 of the reply that the vehicle was registered for its personal use as per the affidavit submitted by the complainant at the time of registration. It was therefore not a transport vehicle even on the date on which it was got registered and it was however so shown in the RC due to the fault in the software.  The OP No.1 and OP No. 2 in para number 23 have made it clear that before 23.06.2006 the vehicles used for personal use having 7-12 seating capacity were being issued RCs with description of LMV-T as per software in the computer.  However, now after 23.06.2006 such vehicles are being described as LMV-NT (Non transport).  It therefore cannot be said if the vehicle in question was a transport vehicle requiring any fitness certificate from the authorities. It was mentioned as LMV-T only due to the reason that proper software had not been installed in the computer in the office of the OP No.1 and OP No.2.

6.             It is true that the registration of the vehicle had expired on 10.11.2007, but subsequently the complainant deposited the road tax due from him and the OP-1 and OP-2 have issued a fresh RC Annexure C-15.  In this RC the vehicle was mentioned to be LMV-NT (Non transport).

7.             As regards the non-payment of road tax the OP No.1 and OP No.2 have recovered from the complainant the arrears of road tax from 11.11.2007 to 23.03.2020 alongwith penalty.  The OP No.1 and OP No.2 admitted this fact in preliminary objection number 1 of the reply in which it was admitted that the RC was renewed from 24.03.2009 which is valid upto 23.03.2020 and the payment of road tax of gap period was also paid by the complainant.  Since the road tax has already been recovered from the complainant alongwith penalty it now cannot be said if he had not paid the road tax for the period
when the accident took place.

8.             The next question would be whether the OP-3 can deny compensation to the complainant on the ground that the certificate of registration had expired and the road tax was not paid. Our answer to the question is in the negative. There is no dispute about it that the road tax had been paid by the complainant upto 10.11.2006 only, the certificate of registration had expired on 10.11.2007. However inspite of both these drawbacks the insurance policy annexure R-3/1 was issued to the complainant valid from 1.07.2008 to 30.06.2009.  The appropriate time to ask for a valid certificate of registration and payment of road tax would have been at the time when the complainant submitted the proposal form but the OP No.3 did not insist upon that which means that they are adopting an unfair trade practice of issuing the insurance policy and then denying the claim without there being any change of circumstances.  Once the OPs issued the policy of the vehicle, the condition of which remained the same till accident, they cannot be heard complaining that the RC had expired or the road tax had not been paid and therefore they were not liable to pay compensation.  In case “Prasanta Ghosh Vs. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited & Anr., I 2010 CPJ 622” under the similar circumstances where the fact of non-registration of vehicle was known to the OP while issuing the policy, it was held that non-registration of vehicle cannot be a ground for repudiating claim. Our case is clearly covered by these authorities.

9.             Otherwise also the OPs cannot deny compensation even if the vehicle remained unregistered or the road tax was not paid. If any unregistered vehicle was plied on the road without paying road tax, it was for the police or the motor vehicle authorities to take action against the complainant or the driver in accordance with Motor Vehicle Act and the Rules made there under. However, on that ground the compensation payable to the complainant cannot be denied to him. In case “HDFC Chubb General Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. ILA Gupta & Ors., I (2007) CPJ 274 (NC)” the vehicle was not registered and was involved in some accident.  The petitioner-insurer repudiated the claim for compensation upon which the Hon`ble National Commission held that non-registration of the vehicle did not lead to the accident and therefore the insurance company cannot deny compensation on that ground.  It was further held that the vehicle wore a temporary registration number at the time when the policy was issued which was very much in the knowledge of the insurance company and therefore the insurer could have cancelled the policy in order to make the respondent take another policy or revalidate the same according to insurance policy conditions but this action was not taken by the petitioner OP and therefore they were held liable to pay compensation.  In another case “Sanjeev Kumar Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., & Ors., I (2008) CPJ 270 (NC)” also the vehicle was not registered and when the compensation was claimed the insurance company repudiated the claim.  However, the National Commission held that full insured value was payable by the OPs alongwith interest.  In view of these authorities we are of the opinion that the payment of compensation cannot be withheld by the OP on any such ground that the registration certificate of the vehicle had expired or the road tax was not paid.

10.           The OP-3 had appointed the surveyor who submitted his report Annexure R-3/3 vide which it was found that the complainant was entitled to a compensation of Rs.1,22,527.43 paisa.  The OPs have deducted a sum of Rs.1000/- on account of some “less policy clause” but in our opinion this deduction is not permissible because the claim is in excess of Rs.1000/- The complainant would therefore be entitled to Rs.1,22,527.43 paisa (or say Rs.1,22,527/-) as compensation.

11.                  In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the present complaint must succeed. The same is accordingly allowed.  The OP-3 is directed to pay to the complainant Rs.1,22,527/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. with effect from 20.03.2009 (one month after the report Annexure R-3/3 of the surveyor) along with Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which OP-3 would be liable to pay penal interest @ 12% p.a. on the above amount since the filing of the present complaint i.e. 06.10.2009 till the payment is actually made to the complainant.

              Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.