DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .
Complaint No. 444
Instituted on: 17.10.2018
Decided on: 08.03.2021
Sarbjeet Kaur W/o Bakhshish Singh, resident of Village Namol, District Sangrur, Punjab.
…. Complainant.
Versus
1. United India Insurance Company Limited, Servicing Office, 5&6 Appasamy Tower, IInd Floor, Thiayagaraya Road, T Nagar, Chennai, Tamil Nadu-600017 through its Manager.
2. Goverdhan Automobiles, Opposite Verka Milk Plant, Patiala Road, Sangrur 148001 through its M.D.
….Opposite parties.
For the complainant: :Shri Ramit Pathak, Adv.
For the OP No.1 :Shri Bhushan Garg, Adv.
For the OP No.2 :Exparte.
Quorum: Shri Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President
Shri V.K.Gulati, Member
ORDER:
Shri Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President
1. Smt. Sarabjeet Kaur, complainant has filed this complaint pleading that the complainant purchased two wheeler model Fascino from Op number 2 vide challan dated 31.8.2017 vide tax invoice number 242 dated 7.9.2017 for Rs.54,668/-, which was got financed from HDFC Bank Limited through Op number 2. It is further averred that at the time of purchase of the vehicle the OP number 2 charged the amount from the complainant on account of registration certificate as well as for the insurance. The insurance of the vehicle was done by the OP number 1 for the period from 7.9.2017 to 6.9.2018. Further it is averred that the OP number 2 had to apply for the RC on behalf of the complainant and accordingly registration number PB-13-AZ-3693 was allotted.
2. Further case of the complainant is that unfortunately the vehicle of the complainant was got fully damaged in a road side accident while it was being driven by the relative of the complainant. The accident was so severe that the relative of the complainant could not survive and passed away. The insurance company has denied the claim of the complainant saying that the registration certificate was applied after a long delay. Further it is averred that the Ops are not bothering to the situation of the complainant and are not settling the rightful claim of the complainant and the vehicle is lying in accidental condition. Further the complainant got served a legal notice upon the OPs on 14.8.2018 through her counsel Shri Ramit Pathak, Advocate, but the same was not received by the OP number 2 and returned the same with remarks ‘refused’. Though the complainant requested the Ops to release the claim amount, but all in vain. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the Opposite parties be directed to pay to the complainant the full insurance amount of the vehicle and further to pay Rs.33,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, tension and harassment and an amount of Rs.12,000/- on account of litigation expenses.
3. Record shows that the Op number 2 was proceeded against exparte.
4. In reply filed by the OP number 1, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP number 1, that the complaint is liable to be dismissed and the complaint is not maintainable, that the complainant has breached the terms and conditions of the policy, that the complaint is false, frivolous and bad in law, that the complainant has not come to this Commission with clean hands and that the complaint has been filed to over reach the law and contract of insurance. On merits, it is admitted that the vehicle in question was insured with the OP but the claim has been repudiated as the complainant has violated the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the company is not liable to compensate the insurance amount. It is further stated that after the assessment of the loss, the surveyor submitted his report dated 1.6.2018 assessing the loss to the tune of Rs.35,943/-. It is further mentioned in the report of surveyor that the policy was issued on 7.9.2017 whereas accident occurred on 30.10.2017 and the date of registration is 24.11.2017 i.e. after the accident. Complainant got the vehicle repaired and the said claim did not fall under total loss and therefore repair was carried out by the complainant. It is stated that the claim has rightly been repudiated. Lastly, the Op has prayed that the complaint be dismissed with special costs.
5. The learned counsel for the parties produced their respective evidence.
6. The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant purchased two wheeler model Fascino from Op number 2 vide challan dated 31.8.2017 vide tax invoice number 242 dated 7.9.2017 for Rs.54,668/-, which was got financed from HDFC Bank Limited through Op number 2. The learned counsel for the complainant has further argued that at the time of purchase of the vehicle the OP number 2 charged the amount from the complainant on account of registration certificate as well as for the insurance. The insurance of the vehicle was done by the OP number 1 for the period from 7.9.2017 to 6.9.2018 and the OP number 2 applied for registration of the vehicle in question. The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that registration number PB-13-AZ-3693 was allotted to the vehicle in question. Further the learned counsel for the complainant has argued that unfortunately the vehicle of the complainant was got fully damaged in a road side accident while it was being driven by the relative of the complainant. The accident was so severe that the relative of the complainant could not survive and passed away. The learned counsel for the complainant has further argued that the complainant approached the OP for the insurance claim of the damaged vehicle but the OP number 2 directed the complainant to approach OP number 1, but the OP number 1 repudiated the rightful claim of the complainant.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP number 1 has argued that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and the claim was repudiated after considering all the material facts as there was no permanent registration certificate of the vehicle at the time of accident. The learned counsel for the OP has relied upon on Narinder Singh versus New India Assurance Company Limited and others Civil Appeal No.8463 of 2014, decided on 4.9.2014 (Supreme Court of India) wherein it has been held Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 166 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 section 39 and 43 Purchase of new vehicle. Temporary registration expired on 11.1.2006. Accident took place on 2.2.2006 when the vehicle was without any registration. Insurance also expired. Insurance company not liable.
8. Further the learned counsel for the OP has cited Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and another versus Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 11th Mall, Near SBI, Solan HP 2016(3) CPR 582 (National Commission) Insurance service. Theft of vehicle. Claim repudiated. Validity. Temporary registration certificate of the car in question, expired. Nothing on record that immediately, thereafter, the complainant applied for registration of the vehicle, with the Registering Authority. Held, there is a fundamental breach and the Insurance company has rightly dishonoured the claim. Order of State Commission set aside. Petition allowed.
9. Ex.C-1/A is the affidavit of the complainant Smt. Sarbjeet Kaur and she has deposed as per the complaint. Ex.C-2 is the copy of insurance policy of the vehicle in question showing payment of premium of Rs.2120/- and the insurance period was from 7.9.2017 to 6.9.2018. In the end of this policy document Ex.C-2, it is mentioned “for renewal/claim assistance please contact ins. Co. and broker through Govardhan Automobiles Sangrur at 01672-251535/9056301237”. So, from this fact, it is clear that there was conclusion between both the opposite parties i.e. insurance company and automobile dealer and the insurance was got conducted by M/s. Govardhan Automobiles Sangrur. Ex.C-3 is tax invoice in the name of the complainant for Rs.42,709/-, Ex.C-4 is the sale challan issued by M/s. Govardhan Automobiles in the name of Sarabjeet Kaur for Rs.54,668/-. Ex.C-5 is tax receipt of motor vehicle department and this tax was Rs.2570/- only and it was from 24.11.2017 to 23.11.2032. That this payment has been made by Goverdhan Automobiles registered at Sangrur. As such, this document shows that the complainant is not at all fault and the fault lies with M/s. M/s. Govardhan Automobiles Sangrur and this amount had been given by the complainant to OP number 2. Ex.C-6 is registration of the vehicle and Ex.C-7 is legal notice, wherein it is mentioned that registration number was allotted to the vehicle and thereafter unfortunately the vehicle was got fully damaged in a road side accident while it was being driven by the relative of the complainant, who had also passed away. Ex.C-7 is FIR under section 304-A of the IPC and this is dated 30.10.2017.
10. On the other hand, Shri Harmeet Singh Chahal, has tendered his affidavit Ex.OP1/1 and has deposed as per the written statement and it has been stated in the affidavit that vehicle was without registration number at the time of accident. OP1/2 is insurance policy, Ex.OP1/3 is the copy of repudiation letter, Ex.Op1/4 is the copy of survey report wherein the claim has been said to be Rs.35,943/-. Ex.OP1&2/5 is the affidavit of Er. Sanjeev Kumar Verma, surveyor and Ex.OP1/6 is the copy of registration certificate, Ex.OP1/7 is the receipt of motor vehicle tax, Ex.OP1/8 is the total bill for R.36,555/- of M/s. Govardhan Automobiles Sangrur, Ex.OP1/9 is the tax invoice of M/s. Govardhan Automobiles Sangrur.
11. The law cited by the Ops is not applicable to the facts of this case as from the documents on the file it is clear that the OPs have conclusion between them as it is clear from the policy document Ex.C-2 on record that “for renewal/claim assistance please contact ins. Co. and broker through Govardhan Automobiles Sangrur at 01672-251535/9056301237”. The tax amount has also been deposited by M/s. Govardhan Automobiles on 24.9.2017 and the amount was also paid by M/s. Govardhan Automobiles. The amount of smart card was also deposited by OP number 2. So, it is clear that M/s. Govardhan Automobiles, Sangrur deposited the registration tax late and as such the OP number 2 is liable for late deposit of the registration tax. As such, we find no fault on behalf of the complainant in late deposit of the tax. Further the Consumer Protection Act is made for the benefit of the consumer and where both the opposite parties are in conclusion, then the right of the consumer cannot be defeated.
12. In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct OP number 1 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.33,000/- on account of insurance claim of the vehicle in question along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of repudiation of the claim i.e.3.7.2018 till its realization. We further direct OP number 2 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.25,000/- in lieu of compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment to the complainant. This order be complied with by the opposite parties within 60 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. A certified copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost as per rules. File be consigned to records.
Pronounced.
March 8, 2021.
(Vinod Kumar Gulati) (Jasjit Singh Bhinder)
Member President
