Assam

Dibrugarh

CC/9/2017

SMTI. MOUSUMI GOGOI - Complainant(s)

Versus

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD, REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL/BRANCH MANAGER - Opp.Party(s)

SRI VIJAY PANDEY

09 Aug 2024

ORDER

Date of Argument- 10.11.2022 (O.P.)

                                                                                           Date of Judgement- 07.08.2024

This complaint petition was filed U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with prayer to direct the O.P.s to settle the claim of the complainant by paying the insured sum of Rs.5,41,433/- (Rupees five lakh forty one thousand four hundred thirty three) only along with an interest of 21% per annum from the date of filling the complaint till realization along with compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for giving physical, mental and financial agony and cost of litigation.   

                                JUDGEMENT

1. The case of the complainant Mrs. Mousumi Gogoi in brief is that she is a permanent resident of village Kahmon Bahpara, P.O.- Bahpara, P.S.- Dhakuakhana, Dist.- Lakhimpur. The complainant is the wife of Jayanatjit Gogoi (since deceased) who had purchased a Jet Silver Indigo ECS LX TDI TA65, on 13.05.2014 from Subhangshu Motors (A unit of J.D. Ventures Pvt Ltd,) which was financed by Mahindra & Mahindra financial Service Ltd. Dibrugarh, having its Chassis No- MAT607341EPA00801, Engine No.-4751DTI4AVYP00465 and it was also insured with the O.P. i.e. United Insurance Co. Ltd, Dibrugarh Branch office bearing Policy No. 02090031140118000221.

 

2. It is averred that on 14.12.2014 complainant’s husband while traveling from Tezpur towards Dibrugarh the aforesaid car met with an accident at 02.30 A.M. near Milanpur, Moran NH-37 with one vehicle bearing registration No. AS03 AC 6711 (TATA DT) which was coming from opposite direction in rush and negligent manner and knocked at the car. Complainant’s husband Jayantajit Gogoi (since deceased) died on the spot and the car got damaged wholly in the said accident.

 

3. The complainant had approached the Divisional Manager, of United Insurance Co. Ltd. Dibrugarh after the incident, claiming of insurance and gave information regarding the accident. It is stated that the vehicle was under insurance (the period of insurance w.e.f. from 13.05.2014 to the midnight of 12.05.2015) and there was huge damage of the vehicle as such the owner/policy holder of the vehicle/claimant has submitted claim before the O.P. for estimated amount of loss occurred due to the bad road condition. The estimated loss of the vehicle due to the heavy bad road condition amounted to Rs.5,41,433/- (Rupees five lakh forty one thousand four hundred thirty three) only. But the O.P. till date did not pay any attention to the claim submitted to the O.P.

 

4. Complainant averred that she had written a letter on 21.01.2016 which was duly replied by the O.P. But vide letter dated 12.12.2016, the O.P. refused to settle the claim of the claimant arbitrary and illegally. As such complainant being compelled institutes this case praying to direct the O.P. to pay the compensation as per law for her immense physical, mental agony and harassment caused by the O.P. The cause of action for the complaint grievances arose with effect from 12.12.2016 when the O.P. refused to settle the claim of the complainant. It is a gross deficiency and negligence on the part of the O.P. and as such the O.P. is liable under the law to pay adequate compensation to the complaint. The Complainant prays following reliefs –

 

1. To direct the O.P. to settle the claim of the claimant/complainant by paying the insurance insured sum of Rs.5,41,433/- (Rupees five lakh forty one thousand four hundred thirty three) only with 21% interest till date of payment.
2. To direct the O.P. to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for the physical, mental and financial agony suffered by the complainant.
3. Cost of the litigation.

 

5. Registering the case U/S 13 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, notices were issued to the O.P.s and after receipt of the notice, O.P. appeared before this Commission and filed Written Statement on 07.08.2017 contending interalia that there is no cause of action arose as claimed by the complainant and also not maintainable in the eye of law. The complaint is bad for suppression of material facts in particulars as well as not filed by the proper person and hence is liable to be dismissed. The petition is false, frivolous and speculative and the petitioner have filed this case for illegal gain and hence the complainant is not entitled to get any relief. The claim of the petitioner is without any basis, neither legal nor material and is exaggerated, excessive and exorbitant. O.P. denied that “the complainant is the wife of Jayantajit Gogoi(since deceased)” for want of knowledge. However, the O.P. have admitted that Jayanatjit Gogoi had purchased a Jet Silver Indigo ECS LX TDI TA65, on 13.05.2014 from Subhangshu Motors (A unit of J.D. Ventures Pvt. Ltd.) which was also financed by Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Service Ltd. Dibrugarh, having its Chasis No. MAT607341EPA00801, Engine No. 4751DTI4AVYP00465 and it was insured with the O.P. i.e. United Insurance Co. Ltd, Dibrugarh Branch office being Policy No. 02090031140118000221.

 

6. The O.P. further denied that the complainant approached and claimed before the Divisional Manager of United Insurance Co. Ltd. Dibrugarh, for claiming of insurance and information regarding the accident. The O.P. also denied that the aforesaid vehicle was under insurance (the period of insurance was valid from 13.05.2014 to midnight of 12.05.2015) and there was huge damage of the vehicle due to the bad road condition. O.P. denied that the estimated loss of the vehicle due to the accident amounts to Rs. 5,41,433/- as it was being highly excessive, exorbitant and without any basis neither legal not proper. The O.P. alleged that the complainant has made false, concocted story made with a view to obtain illegal gain and as such she is not entitled to any claim, compensation. O.P. also denied that they did not give any attention to the claim submitted by the complainant.

 

7. O.P. has further submitted that the vehicle was driven without any registration number at the time of loss. Even the temporary registration number was found invalid at the time of loss. It is stated that plying of vehicle without any registration number is gross contravention of section 39 of Motor Vehicle Act. Section 39 of M.V. Act prohibits the driving of a motor vehicle in any public place or in any other place without registering it under the provision of M.V. Act. O.P. further submitted that the driving a vehicle on the public road without any registration is not only an offence punishable under Section 192 of M.V. Act but also a fundamental breach of terms and conditions of policy of contract. It is submitted that the O.P. vide its letter dated 22.01.2016 requested the complainant for submitting clarification regarding the reason for non registration of the vehicle till date of loss even after elapsed of huge gap of time but the complainant has not given any reply to the said letter. The O.P. vide its letter dated 12.12.2016 informed the complainant regarding the repudiation of claim as because the vehicle was running without any registration certificate. Hence under the circumstances the O.P. prayed for dismissed the claim petition with cost for the ends of justice.

 

8. In this case the complainant filed evidence on 19.02.2018 as P.W.1 and stated that she is wife of Late Jayantajit Gogoi and permanent resident of Village Kahmon Bahpara, P.O. Bahpara, P.S. Dhakuakhana, Dist. Lakhimpur, Assam. The complainant further stated that her husband Jayanatjit Gogoi (since deceased) had purchased a Jet Silver Indigo ECS LX TDI TA65, on 13.05.2014, from Subhangshu Motors (A unit of J.D. Ventures Pvt. Ltd.) Dibrugarh, having its Chasis No.-MAT607341EPA00801, Engine No.-4751DTI4AVYP00465, and which was also insured with the O.P. i.e. United Insurance Co. Ltd., Dibrugarh Branch office bearing Policy No. 02090031140118000221. P.W.1 stated that on 14.12.2014 her husband Jayanatjit Gogoi (since deceased) while travelling from Tezpur towards Dibrugarh the aforesaid car at 2.30 A.M. met with an accident near Milanpur, Moran NH-37 with one vehicle being registration No.AS03AC6711 (TATA DI) which was coming from opposite direction in rush and negligent manner and knocked the car. Complainant’s husband Jayantajit Gogoi (since deceased) died on the spot and the car got damaged wholly. Thereafter the complainant approached to the Divisional Manager, of United Insurance Co. Ltd. Dibrugarh, for claiming of insurance and gave information regarding the accident. The above vehicle was under insurance (the period of insurance was 13.05.2014 to midnight of 12.05.2015) and there is huge damaged of the vehicle as such the owner/policy holder of the vehicle submitted claim before the O.P. for the estimated amount of loss occurred due to the bad road condition. The estimated loss of the vehicle due to the heavy bad road condition is amounts to Rs.5,41,433/-. But the O.P. did not pay kind attention of the claim submitted by the complainant.  The complainant has submitted following documents as exhibits to substantiate her claim-

 

1. Exhibit No.1 is the copy of sale certificate
2. Exhibit No.2 is the copy of insurance being policy No. 0209003114011800021
3. Exhibit No.3 is the copy of the Police Report of Moran Police Station, District Dibruagarh issued to the Manager of Opposite Party.
4. Exhibit No.4 is the Death Certificate of Jayantajit Gogoi
5. Exhibit No.5 is the letter issued by the O.P. dated 22.01.2016
6. Exhibit No.6 is the letter issued by the Senior Branch Manger on 12.12.2016.

 

9. On the other hand Sri Pradip Kumar Saha, the administrative officer, at United Insurance Co. Ltd. at its Divisional Manager, Tinsukia, Assam has filed evidence on affidavit on 19.05.2018 on behalf of O.P. as D.W.-1. The D.W.1 submitted that the complainant falsely stated that on 14.12.2014 while travelling from Tezpur towards Dibrugarh the Jet Silver Indigo ECS LX TDI TA65, (Car) at 02.30 A.M. met with an accident near Milanpur, Moran NH-37 with one vehicle being Registration No. AS03 AC 6711 (TATA DI) which was coming from Opposite direction in rash and negligent manner and as a result of the said accident, the vehicle got damaged. The D.W. 1 stated that the complainant Mrs. Mousumi Gogoi has falsely stated that she has approached and claimed to the Divisional Manager of United Insurance Co. Ltd. Dibrugarh for claiming of insurance and information regarding the accident. The complainant has falsely stated that the estimated loss of the vehicle due to the heavy bad road condition is amount to Rs.5,41,433/-. D.W.1 further stated that the complainant falsely stated that the O.P. till date did not pay any kind of attention of the claim submitted to the O.P. It is also stated that the complainant Mrs. Mousumi Gogoi has falsely stated that the O.P. vide their letter dated 12.12.2016 refused to settle the claim of the claimant arbitrarily and illegally, whereas the United Insurance Co. Ltd. i.e. the O.P. vide its letter dated 22.01.2016 requested the complainant for submitting clarification regarding the reason for non-registration of the vehicle till the date of loss even after elapsed of the huge gap of time but the complainant had not given any reply to the said letter. D.W. 1 stated that his company vide letter dated 12.12.2016 informed the complainant regarding the repudiation of claim as because the vehicle was running without any registration certificate.

 

10. The D.W. 1 submitted that the vehicle was driven without any registration number at the time of loss/accident. Even the temporary registration number was found invalid at the time of damage. The plying of vehicle without any registration number is gross contravention of provision of Section 39 of Motor Vehicle Act. Section 39 of Motor Vehicle Act prohibits the driving of motors vehicle in any public place or in any other place without registering it under the provision of M.V. Act. It is further submitted that driving a vehicle on the public road without any registration is not only an offence punishable under Section 192 of M.V. Act but also a fundamental breach of terms and conditions of policy of contact. The complainant falsely stated that she has available evidence in her custody and the same will be sufficient to hold that O.P. liable for deficiency and negligence in service under the Consumer Protection Act 1986, and the O.P. did not come forward for an honourable and amicable settlement.   

 

11. In this case complainant has not filed any written argument despite repeated opportunities were given to her and also did not appear before this Commission and remained absent since 08.11.2018 without any steps. However, the O.P. filed written argument on 10.11.2022 and stated that on 13.05.2014 complainant’s husband Jayanatjit Gogoi purchased a Jet Silver Indigo ECS LX TDI TA65 from Subhangshu Motors which was duly insured with O.P. on 14.12.2014 at about 2.30 A.M. aforesaid car met with an accident near Milanpur, Moran NH-37 due to rash and negligent driving of one vehicle bearing Registration No.AS-03AC-6711 and as a result husband of the complainant died on the spot. The complainant approached and claimed Rs.5,41,433/- from the O.P. on account of huge damaged of the vehicle due to the bad road condition. The complainant wrote a letter dated 21.01.2016 to settle the claim upon which O.P. refused to settle the claim. As such the complainant was compelled to institute this case against the O.P. By denying all the allegations of the complainant, the O.P. submitted that the aforesaid vehicle was driven without any registration number at the time of accident. The plying of vehicle without any registration number is gross contravention of provision of Section 39 of Motor Vehicle Act. Section 39 Motor Vehicle Act prohibits the driving of a motor vehicle in any public place or in any other place without registering it under the provision of M.V. Act. The O.P. in its written statement submitted that driving a vehicle on the public road without any registration is not only an offence punishable U/S 192 of M.V. Act but also a fundamental breach of terms and conditions of policy of contract. The O.P. in its written argument submitted that, vide letter dated 22.01.2016 the O.P. requested the complainant for submitting clarification regarding the reason for non registration of the vehicle even after elapse of huge gap of time but the complainant had not given any reply to the said letter. O.P. further argued that the complainant in course of trial failed to file any evidence of complainant witnesses and remained absent from trail on and from 01.11.2018 without any steps. Hence under the circumstances the case may be dismissed for default on the part of complainant. The complainant filed this compliant case only to harass the O.P.  

 

Points to be decided

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer of the Opposite Parties under the Consumer Protection Act?
2. Whether the Opposite Parties are liable for deficiency of services towards the Complainant.
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to relief prayed for in the complaint petition?

 

Decisions and Reasons thereof

1. We have carefully gone through the averments of the complaint, written statement, evidence in affidavit along with annexed documents and written argument on record by both the parties and it is found that the O.P.s have admitted that the husband of the complainant, Jayanatjit Gogoi had purchased a Jet Silver Indigo ECS LX TDI TA65, on 13.05.2014 from Subhangshu Motors (A unit of J.D. Ventures Pvt. Ltd.) which was also financed by Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Service Ltd. Dibrugarh, having its Chasis No. MAT607341EPA00801, Engine No. 4751DTI4AVYP00465 and it was insured with this O.P. i.e. United Insurance Co. Ltd, Dibrugarh Branch office bearing Policy No. 02090031140118000221 for the period from 13.05.2014 to midnight of 12.05.2015 and IDV of the car including accessories shown as Rs. 5,41,433/- wherein the complainant was the nominee of the aforesaid policy. Complainant relied upon Sale certificate and Insurance Policy being No. 02090031140118000221 (Exhibit No.1 and 2) to prove the same and hence, there is no iota of doubt that the present complainant is a consumer under the O.P.  

 

2. About deficiency we have found that after the death of her husband on 14.12.2014, the complainant put forward her claim as a nominee of the aforesaid private car package policy with the O.P. for her receivable amount. The main grievance of the complainant is that she is the wife of Jayanatjit Gogoi (since deceased) who purchased a Jet Silver Indigo ECS LX TDI TA65, on 13.05.2014, from Subhangshu Motors (A unit of J.D. Ventures Pvt Ltd,) which was financed by Mahindra & Mahindra financial Service Ltd. Dibrugarh, having its Chassis No- MAT607341EPA00801, Engine No.-4751DTI4AVYP00465 and it was also insured with the O.P. i.e. United Insurance Co. Ltd, Dibrugarh Branch office bearing Policy No. 02090031140118000221. It is further stated that on 14.12.2014 when husband of the complainant, the owner of the vehicle was proceeding from Tezpur towards Dibrugarh he met with an accident at 02.30 A.M. near Milanpur, Moran NH-37 due to the rash and negligent driving of one vehicle bearing registration No. AS03 AC 6711 (TATA DI) which was coming from opposite direction and knocked at the aforesaid car. Complainant’s husband Jayantajit Gogoi died on the spot in the said accident and the car got damaged wholly. Complainant informed the Divisional Manager, of United Insurance Co. Ltd., Dibrugarh about the incident as the insurance policy was in force at that time (the period of insurance was 13.05.2014 to midnight of 12.05.2015) and also submitted her claim for insurance. Complainant stated that the estimated loss of the vehicle due to the heavy bad road condition is amounts to Rs.5,41,433/- (Rupees five lakh forty one thousand four hundred thirty three) only. But it is alleged that the O.P. till date did not pay any attention to the claim submitted to the O.P.

 

On the other hand the O.P. contended that the husband of the complainant, Jayanatjit Gogoi had purchased a Jet Silver Indigo ECS LX TDI TA65, on 13.05.2014 and which was insured with the O.P. i.e. United Insurance Co. Ltd, Dibrugarh Branch office bearing Policy No. 02090031140118000221 but the aforesaid vehicle was driven without any registration number at the time of loss. Even the temporary registration number was found invalid at the time of loss. It is submitted that plying of vehicle without any registration number is gross contravention of provision of section 39 of Motor Vehicle Act. Section 39 of M.V. Act prohibits the driving of a motor vehicle in any public place or in any other place without registering it under the provision of M.V. Act. O.P. further submitted that the driving of vehicle on the public road without any registration is not only an offence punishable under Section 192 of M.V. Act, but also a fundamental breach of terms and conditions of policy of contract. O.P. vide its letter dated 22.01.2016 requested the complainant for submitting clarification regarding the reason for non registration of the vehicle till date of loss even after elapsed of huge gap of time but the complainant had not given any reply to the said letter. The O.P. vide its letter dated 12.12.2016 informed the complainant regarding the repudiation of claim as because the vehicle was running without any registration certificate.

 

Considering the rival submission of both the parties we found that O.P. has admitted that the vehicle was purchased on 13.05.2014 by the husband of the complainant Jayayanajit Gogoi (since deceased) which was finance by Mahindra & Mahindra financial Service Ltd., Dibrugarh. The vehicle was insured with the O.P. i.e. United Insurance Co. Ltd., Dibrugarh Branch Office having Policy No. 02090031140118000221 which was valid for the period of 13.05.2014 to midnight of 12.05.2015 and the complainant was the nominee of the said policy. The IDV of the car including accessories was Rs. 5,41,433/-.  As per police report of Moran P.S. Case No. 13/2015 (Exhibit No.3), accident took place on 14.12.2014. The complainant submitted her claim which was repudiated by the O.P. vide letter dated 12.12.2016 (Exhibit No.6) on the ground that the aforesaid insured vehicle was driven by the husband of the complainant Jayayanajit Gogoi (since deceased) without any registration number at the material time of accident. O.P. vide letter dated 22.01.2016 (Exhibit No.5) requested to clarify the reason for non registration of the vehicle till the date of loss and purpose of use of the vehicle at the time of loss. O.P. alleged that the complainant has failed to provide any reasonable cause for non-registration of vehicle. Hence, claim of the complainant repudiated mainly on the ground that the vehicle remained unregistered for more than 7 months from the date of purchase i.e. 13.05.2014. Therefore, main controversy is whether the repudiation of the claim on the ground of non-registration of vehicle is justified or not. 

 

It is to be mentioned here that from perusal of case record we have noticed that at the time of filing evidence on affidavit i.e. on 19.02.2018 the complainant filed petition before this Commission for directing the O.P. for production of original documents as all the original documents which were submitted to the O.P. at the time of filing the insurance claim. Complying the order of this Commission on 28.09.2022, the O.P. produced only two original documents i.e. letter dated 11.02.2016 and 21.04.2015. In letter dated 21.04.2015, complainant had prayed before the O.P i.e. the Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd for early settlement of her insurance claim and requested to excuse her for non submission of necessary documents on time to dealer as after the death of her husband she got a great shock and went to coma and now she living alone with her little child. And in letter dated 11.02.2016, complainant informed the O.P. that due to some medical ground of her family members they could not got registered the vehicle on time. Both the letters dated 21.04.2015 and 11.02.2016 produced by the O.P. were proved in original but not marked as exhibits by the complainant hence these documents cannot be considered as exhibits by this Commission. Moreover, complainant in her evidence in affidavit had filed xerox copies of six documents which were marked as Exhibit No. 1 to 6. But those documents shown as exhibits were not proved in original and also not even signed by the then presiding officer for which those documents cannot be admissible as evidence in the eye of law.

 

3. Regarding eligibility of getting relief, compensation, we have seen that the insured vehicle was remained unregistered for a period of more than 7 months from the date of purchase i.e. on 13.05.2014 and the aforesaid vehicle was driven by husband of the complainant without any registration at the material time of accident i.e. on 14.12.2014. Learned counsel for the O.P. pleaded that plying of vehicle without any registration number is gross contravention of provision of Section 39 of Motor Vehicle Act which is an offence punishable under Section 192 of Motor Vehicle Act. The Learned counsel for the O.P. further pleaded that the vehicle was driven without any registration number at the time of loss and even the temporary registration number was found invalid at the time of accident. O.P. vide letter dated 22.01.2016 requested the complainant for submitting clarification regarding the reason for non registration of the vehicle even after elapsed of huge gap of time. Though the complainant vide letter dated 11.02.2016 had shown reasons of non registration of the vehicle to the O.P. but she failed to produce any document that she sought extension of temporary registration before or after 14.12.2014 on the ground of some special reason. And we have found that at the relevant time, the vehicle was being driven in violation of mandate of the Motor Vehicle Act. Therefore, the O.P.s rightly repudiated the claim raised by the complainant on the ground of non registration of vehicle as per provisions of Motor Vehicle Act. Hence the act of O.P. in repudiating the claim of the complainant cannot be termed as deficiency in service.

Further the complainant claimed insured sum amount of Rs. 5,41,433/- (Rupees five lakh forty one thousand four hundred thirty three) only of said car insurance policy as the vehicle was damaged totally in the said accident. However, no surveyor was deputed for the purpose of estimating the damage of the said vehicle for which it is difficult to make the O.P. liable to satisfy the claim of the complainant. Furthermore from the order sheet it also reveals that the complainant has failed submit written argument of her own case and remained absent since 30.06.2018 without any step.

In this regard we may refer the judgement of our Hon’ble Supreme Court in Narinder Singh Vs New India Assurance Company Limited and ors. 2014(9) SCC 324) wherein it is held that if the vehicle in question has no registration then this constitutes a fundamental breach of the policy, entitling the insurer to repudiate the claim.

From all above discussions and observations this Commission unanimously comes to a conclusion that the complainant is not entitled to get any relief as claimed by her in the complaint petition. The complaint filed by the complainant is hereby dismissed without any cost.

This instant C.C. No.09/2017 is disposed of on contest and the Opposite party is set forth at liberty from this case.

Send copy of this judgement to both the parties for record.