Haryana

Karnal

192/2014

Sanjeev Kumar S/o Nekpal - Complainant(s)

Versus

United India Insurance Company - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. D.P. Raman

02 Jun 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.  

                                                               Complaint No.192 of 2014

                                                             Date of instt.: 14.07.2014

                                                                Date of decision:02.06.2016

 

Sanjeev Kumar son of Nekpal r/o House no.59-60, Gali no.1, Rajeev Puram, Karnal.

 

                                                                   ……..Complainant.

                                      Vs.

1. United India Insurance Company Limited, through its Divisional Manager, Motor Dealer Office, SCO-14, Sector 3 near Nameste Chowk, Karnal.

2. Divisional Manager United India Insurance Company Ltd. SCO-14 Sector 3, near Nameste Chowk, Karnal.

3. Nirmal Motors, through its Managing Director, Meerut Road, Karnal.

 

                                                                   ………… Opposite Parties

.

                      Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

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

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:-      Sh. D.P. Rana Advocate for the complainant.

                    Sh. Narender Chaudhary Adv. for the Opposite parties no1 & 2.

                    Opposite party no.3 exparte.

 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 his Motorcycle Splendor PRO DRS Black, bearing  temporary registration no.HR-99-MNT-T-3297, engine no.HA10ELD9E13304 and chasis no.MBLHA10ASD9E09478  with the opposite parties no.1 and 2, under cover note no.44334 dated 26.6.2013, which was valid upto 25.6.2014. On 20.9.2013 the said motorcycle was stolen by some unknown person from outside his house. He searched for the motorcycle at various places and then lodged First Information Report no.682 dated 21.9.2013 in Police Station Sadar Karnal, but the motorcycle could not be traced out. The matter was reported to opposite parties no.1 and 2 alongwith all relevant documents,  but his claim was repudiated by opposite party no.2, vide letter dated 18.11.2013, on the ground that the use of the vehicle was in violation of law because the same  was not got registered with the Registering Authority within 30 days. Such act on the part of the opposite parties no.1 and 2 amounted to deficiency in service, which caused him mental pain, agony and harassment apart from financial loss.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties. Opposite parties no.1 and 2 put into appearance and filed written statement controverting the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complainant has suppressed the material facts from this Forum and that the claim was repudiated on the ground that the vehicle was not got registered as per requirement of Motor Vehicles Act.

                   On merits, it has been submitted that no intimation as per requirements of the policy was given to the opposite parties no.1 and 2 regarding the theft of the motorcycle. Moreover, the motorcycle was not got registered as per requirements of Motor Vehicles Act and terms and conditions of the policy, therefore, the claim was rightly repudiated.

3.                None put into appearance on behalf of the opposite party no.3 despite service. Therefore exparte proceeding were initiated against him, vide order dated 13.10.2014.

4.                In evidence of the complainant, his affidavit EX.C1 and documents Ex.C2 to C15 have been tendered.

5.                On the other hand, in evidence of the opposite parties, affidavit of Virender Kumar Divisional Manager Ex.OP1 and copy of insurance policy Ex.OP2 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.                Admittedly, the motorcycle of the complainant was insured with the opposite parties no.1 and 2, vide cover note no. 44334 dated 26.6.2013 which was valid upto 25.6.2014. The said motorcycle was stolen on 20.9.2013 from outside the house of the complainant and First Information Report no.682 dated 21.9.2013 was registered in Police Station Sadar Karnal regarding the said theft. The complainant lodged the claim with the opposite parties, but the same was repudiated.

7.                Learned counsel for the opposite parties put a great thrust upon the contention that the motorcycle was purchased by the complainant on 26.6.2013 and temporary registration no.HR-99-MNT-T-3297 was provided, which was valid for 30 days only. There is nothing on record to show that the complainant either applied for permanent registration as contemplated in section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act or made application for extension of temporary registration on ground of some special reasons. Upto the date of theft the motorcycle was not got registered with Registering Authority, which was violation of the provisions of section 43 of Motor Vehicles Act. In this way, there was fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of policy contract, therefore, his claim was rightly repudiated. In support of his contention he placed reliance upon Narender Singh Versus New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Ors. 2014 (3) Apex Court Judgments 218.

8.                There is no dispute regarding the proposition of law laid down in Narender Singh case (supra) but the same does not cut any ice in favour of the opposite parties under the obtaining facts and circumstances of the present case. In the referred case, the vehicle was purchased by the complainant on 12.12.2005 and the same was got insured for the period of 12.12.2005 to 11.11.2006. The vehicle met with an accident on 2.2.2006. Till the date of accident the vehicle was not got registered with the Registering Authority, though the period of temporary registration of one month expired on 11.1.2006. Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the provisions of sections 39 and 43 of the Motor Vehicles Act and held that using a vehicle on the public road without any registration is not only an offence punishable under Section 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act, but also a fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of the policy contract.

8.                In the instant case, the motorcycle of the complainant had not met with an accident. There is no evidence on record, which may show that the same was being used on public road. Had the motorcycle been stolen from some other place after being used by the complainant on a public road, then certainly that could be fundamental breach of terms and conditions of policy contract on the part of the complainant, but the motorcycle was stolen from outside of his house, which means the same was not being used on any public road, without registration. If on registered vehicle is kept by a person in his house or parked outside  his house, it cannot be said that the vehicles was being used on public road without registration in violation of Sections 39 and 43 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Under such circumstances, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the opposite parties cannot be accepted being devoid of force. Consequently, repudiation of the claim of the complainant on the ground of non-registration of the vehicle within 30 days from the date of getting temporary registration certificate, certainly amounted to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties no.1 and 2, therefore, complainant is entitled to get compensation.

9.                As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.47,900/- as insured amount to the complainant  alongwith interest thereon @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till its realization. We further direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.3300/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for the litigation expenses. This order shall be complied within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 02.06.2016

                                                                                      (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                                         President,

                                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                             (Anil Sharma)

                               Member