CC Filed on 09.06.2010<br /> Disposed on 13.10.2010<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR.<br /> <br /> Dated: 13th day of October 2010<br /> <br /> PRESENT:<br /> Sri. G.V.HEGDE, President.<br /> <br /> Sri. T.NAGARAJA, Member.<br /> Smt. K.G.SHANTALA, Member.<br /> ---<br /> <br /> Consumer Complaint No. 78/2010<br /> <br /> Between:<br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. Dodda Muniyappa,<br /> S/o. Late Venkateshappa,<br /> Aged about 45 years,<br /> R/o. Yalagondahalli Village and Post,<br /> Avani Hobli,<br /> Mulbagal Taluk,<br /> Kolar District,<br /> Pin Code No. 563 131.<br /> <br /> (By Advocate Sri. D.V. Vishwanatha Gowda & others) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ….Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> <br /> <br /> United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,<br /> Branch Office,<br /> Code No. 071501,<br /> Post Box No. 24, 1st Floor,<br /> Bagalur Mansion,<br /> Doddapet,<br /> Kolar – 563 101.<br /> <br /> (By Advocate Sri. B. Kumar & others) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ….Opposite Party<br /> <br /> <br /> ORDERS<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for a direction against the opposite party to pay Rs.36,300/- towards the value of insured vehicle and compensation of Rs.90,000/- towards the inconvenience caused to complainant with costs and interest, etc.,<br /> <br /> 2. The material facts of complainant’s case may be stated as follows:<br /> That the complainant purchased a TVS Star City motorcycle bearing chasis No. MD 625KF5462N53099 and engine No. AF5N61724558 from showroom at Saravana Enterprises near KSRTC Bus Stand, Kolar on 12.12.2006 for Rs.36,300/-. Thereafter the complainant obtained Temporary Registration Certificate dated 21.12.2006 from R.T.O Kolar which was valid up to 20.01.2007. The said vehicle was insured with OP under policy No. 071501/31/06/01/00003919 covering the risk for the period from 22.12.2006 to 31.12.2007. For one or other reason the complainant did not obtain permanent registration certificate from R.T.O Kolar soon after the expiry of temporary registration. <br /> <br /> It is alleged that on 26.02.2007 at about 5.30 p.m. the complainant had parked the said vehicle near the vegetable market at K. Byapalli Road of Muthyalpet, Mulbagal Town and had been to the said market for purchasing vegetables and when he returned within short time he found that the said vehicle was not traceable at the place where it was parked. He made his efforts to trace the vehicle and could not succeed. Finally he filed complaint before Mulbagal police on 07.03.2007 which was registered in Crime No. 54/07 for offence under sec-379 of I.P.C. The police after investigation found that the vehicle or the accused could not be traced and filed ‘C’ report dated 15.11.2007. Thereafter the complainant preferred claim before OP. The claim was rejected by OP on the ground that the vehicle was not registered on the date of theft and the same was intimated to complainant by letter dated 25.09.2008. Thereafter the complainant filed the present complaint on 09.06.2010. <br /> <br /> 3. The OP appeared and contested the claim on the ground that the vehicle was not registered subsequent to the expiry of the period of temporary registration. Further it contended that the complainant failed to furnish the copy of temporary registration certificate inspite of repeated reminders. Therefore the OP contended that the rejection of claim is valid and legal. <br /> <br /> 4. The parties filed affidavits and relevant documents. The complainant also filed xerox copy of the temporary registration certificate issued by R.T.O Kolar and submitted that the original temporary registration certificate was in the vehicle at the time of its theft and that fact was also noted in his complaint. We heard the Learned Counsel for both parties.<br /> <br /> 5. The following points arise for our consideration:<br /> <br /> Point No.1: Whether the rejection of claim by OP for non-obtaining<br /> permanent registration of the vehicle after expiry of the <br /> temporary registration, is valid?<br /> <br /> Point No.2: If point No.1 is held in negative, to which reliefs the<br /> complainant is entitled to?<br /> <br /> Point No.3: To what order?<br /> <br /> 6. After considering the submissions of parties and records our findings on the above points are as follows:<br /> Point No.1: The OP can avoid its liability arising under the policy, if the insured had committed fundamental breach of the conditions on which the policy is issued. The certificate of insurance contains terms regarding persons or class of persons entitled to drive, limitations has to use of vehicle and the policy contains some other general conditions mentioned in it. Any of these terms and conditions does not suggest that obtaining of permanent registration is necessary to cover any of the risks stated in the policy. It is true that if the motor vehicle is used on a public place without temporary or permanent registration certificate it may amount an offence under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act which may attract penalty. However it appears to us that the non-obtaining of permanent registration does not exonerate the liability of insurer arising under the policy. The decision citied in 2010 (1) KCCR 495 (DB) of our Hon’ble High Court between New India Assurance Company, B’lore V/s. Jayashree @ Lakshmi supports the contention of the complainant that even in the absence of permanent registration certificate he is entitled to claim the loss. Therefore we hold that the rejection of the claim is not valid. According point No.1 is held in negative.<br /> <br /> Point No.2: The value of vehicle was Rs.36,300/- as mentioned in the insurance policy. It was a new vehicle purchased from showroom. The theft had occurred on 26.02.2007. The police reported that the vehicle or the culprit could not be traced inspite of repeated efforts. The final report was accepted by concerned J.M.F.C on 17.01.2008. Thereafter the claim was preferred and it was rejected by letter dated 25.09.2008. It is found that the rejection of claim cannot be justified. Therefore we think interest at the rate of 8% p.a. may be awarded from 25.09.2008. The loss caused to complainant due to theft is to be estimated at Rs.36,300/-. Hence point No.2 is held accordingly.<br /> <br /> Point No.3: Hence we pass the following:<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed with costs of Rs.1,000/-. The OP shall pay Rs.36,300/- to complainant with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. on the said amount from 25.09.2008 till the date of payment within 6 weeks from the date of this order.<br /> <br /> Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced in open Forum this the 13th day of October 2010.<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br />