Haryana

Karnal

130/2013

Surender S/o Ishwar - Complainant(s)

Versus

United India Insurance Company Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

K.K. Chauhan

08 Feb 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.  

                                                          Complaint No. 130 of 2013

                                                          Date of instt.: 8.3.2013

                                                          Date of decision:8.02.2016

                                          

Surender son of Shri Ishwar resident of village and Post office Thari District Karnal.

                                                              ……..Complainant.         

                                      Vs.

United India Insurance company Ltd. having its Branch office near Bus stand, Karnal through its Branch Manager.

                                                            …..Opposite Party.

 

                     Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer

                     Protection Act.

 

Before          Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.               

                    Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:-       Sh.K.K.Chauhan Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Y.P.Arora Advocate for the Opposite Party

 

ORDER:

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, on the averments that he got insured Hero Honda Motor Cycle bearing registration No.HR40D-3816 with the Opposite Party, vide insurance policy No.110713112P300538980 which valid from 24.9.2012 to 23.9.2013.  At the time of taking insurance policy, the vehicle was not bearing  registration number and the insurance was done on the basis of temporary number, mentioning the engine and chassis numbers. The vehicle met with an accident on 28.12.2012 and in the said accident, the same was badly damaged. Intimation was given to the  Opposite Party, who deputed  Sh.Vikash Bansal as surveyor. Survey was duly conducted and loss was assessed as Rs.38220/- .He lodged claim with the Opposite Party and completed all the formalities. The Opposite Party postponed the matter on one pretext or the other. Later on, vide letter dated 5.2.2013 the claim was repudiated on the ground that at the time of accident, there was  not valid registration certificate. After receipt of the said letter,   he approached the Opposite Party and requested to consider his claim, as being simple person he was not aware about the time of getting  the registration done, but the Opposite Party flatly  refused to accede to his request. The act of the Opposite Party amounted to deficiency in services, which caused him mental pain, agony and harassment apart from financial loss.

 

2.                 Notice of the complaint was given to the Opposite Party who appeared and filed written statement controverting the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant has  no loucs standi to file the present complaint; that the complainant is estopped by his own acts and  conduct from filing the present complaint and that complicated questions of law and facts are involved. which cannot be decided by this Forum in summary manner.

 

                   On merits, it has been submitted that motor cycle was being driven in contravention of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. As per registration certificate submitted by the complainant, the date of registration of the motor cycle was 9.1.2013, whereas the loss occurred on 28.12.2012. The temporary registration certificate was valid only from 19.1.2012 to 20.10.2012 and in this way at the time of accident, there was no valid registration certificate , therefore, the Opposite Party rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant. Thus, there was no deficiency in services on the part of the Opposite Party. The other averments made in the complaint have not been admitted.

3.                 In evidence of the complainant, his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6 have been tendered.

4.                 On the other hand, in evidence of the Opposite Party, affidavit of Shri Surjit Singh Vasudeva Deputy Manager, Ex.O1 and documents Ex.O2 to Ex.O4 have been tendered.

5.                 We have appraised the evidence on record,  the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties.

6.                 There is no dispute that the motor cycle of the complainant was insured by the Opposite Party for the period of 24.9.2012 to 23.9.2013. The said motor cycle  met with an accident on 28.11.2012 and  as a result of said accident the same was badly damaged. The claim of the complainant was repudiated by the Opposite Party only on the ground that there was no registration certificate of the motor cycle in question on the date of accident and the temporary registration had already expired.

 

7.                 The learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that the complainant being a simple person was not  aware about the  period during which the motor cycle was to be got registered with the Registration Authority and for that reason registration certificate was not got issued within thirty days of its purchase. Therefore, the insurance company could not repudiate the claim of the complainant on the ground that on the date of accident, the same was not having permanent registration certificate. Moreover, the claim of the complainant could not be repudiated by the Opposite Party under the guise of provisions of Section 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. In support of his contention, he placed reliance upon Aroma Paints Ltd. Vs.New India Assurance Co.Ltd. 2013(3) CPJ 635,  wherein the complainant purchased the vehicle on  9.2.2007, the temporary registration of the vehicle was valid upto 8.3.2007 and the accident took place after  the  lapse of four months approximately from the date of purchase.The claim of the comlpainant was repudiated by the insurance company on the ground that the complainant had not  got done registration of the car. Under those circumstances,  it was held by the Hon’ble National Commission that insurance company does not  enjoin the powers of traffic police and  cannot dismiss the claim under the guise of section  192 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.  It was mere negligence and inaction on the part of the complainant.

8.                 To wriggle out of the aforesaid situation, the learned counsel for the Opposite Party contended that temporary certificate of the  motor cycle was valid from 21.9.2012 to 20.10.2012 , but it is admitted fact that permanent registration certificate in respect of the same was issued by the Registration Authority on 9.1.2013, whereas the accident had taken place on 28.11.2012. Thus, there was no registration certificate  regarding the motor cycle in question on the date of accident, which amounted to fundamental breach of terms and conditions of the insurance contract and as such  insurance company was not liable to pay any claim to the complainant. In support  of his argument, he relied upon  upon judgment of Hon’ble Supreme court in case Narender Singh Versus New India Assurance Company Ltd.in 2014(4) PLR 824.

 

9.                 In Narender Singh’s case (Supra)  temporary registration was granted in respect of the vehicle,  which had expired on 11.1.2006  and the alleged accident had taken place on 2.2.2006 when the vehicle was without any registration.   Nothing was brought on record to show that before or after 11.1.2006 when the  period of temporary registration expired, the appellant-owner either applied for permanent registration of the vehicle as contemplated u/s 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act or made any application for extension of the period as temporary registration on the ground of some special reason.  Under those circumstancves, it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that using the vehicle  at public place without any registration is not only an offence u/s 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act, but also fundamental breach of terms and conditions of the Insurance Contact. 

 

10.                        The  proposition of law law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Narender Singh’s case (Supra)  applies on fours of the present case. The motor Cycle was purchased by the complainant on 24.9.2012 and the same was got insured with the  Oppoiste Party   as fresh vehicle bearing temporary registration number.The insurance  was valid from 24.9.2012 to 23.9.2013.The motor cycle met with an accident on 28.11.2012.  Admittedly, the registration certificate in respect of the said motor cycle was issued by the registration authority on 9.1.2013 Thus, it is emphatically clear that on the date of accident i.e. 28.11.2012, the motor cycle was not got registered  with the Registration Authority  and no permanent registration number was issued. The  temporary registration certifiate, which was valid from 24.9.2012 to 23.10.2012, had already expired.The complainant  had neither applied for permanent registration of the motor cycle nor got extended period of temporary registration number on the ground of some special reasons and the motor cycle was not registered till the date of accident. Therefore, he committed fundamental  breach of terms and condtiions of the Insurance  contract and   as such not entitled to any claim from the insurance company.

 

11.               As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, we do not find any merit  in the present complaint.  Hence,  the same is hereby dismissed.The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced
dated:08.02.2016

                                                                    (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

            (Anil Sharma ) 

               Member.

 

Present:-       Sh.K.K.Chauhan Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Y.P.Arora Advocate for the Opposite Party

 

                   Vide our separate order of the even date, the present complaint has been dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

 

Announced
dated:08.02.2016

                                                                    (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

            (Anil Sharma ) 

               Member.

 

 

 

 

 

Surender Versus United india Insurance Company Ltd. t

 

 

Present:-       Sh.K.K.Chauhan Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Y.P.Arora Advocate for the Opposite Party

 

                   Arguments heard. For orders, the case is adjourned to 8.2.2016.

 

Announced
dated:05.02.2016

                                                                    (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

            (Anil Sharma ) 

               Member.