Haryana

StateCommission

A/116/2015

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

VINOD KUMAR - Opp.Party(s)

SATPAL DHAMIJA

17 Mar 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                                  First Appeal No.116 of 2015 Date of Institution: 04.02.2015

                                                               Date of Decision: 17.03.2016

 

United India Insurance Company Limited, Rajguru Market, G.T. Road, Panipat, through its Deputy Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Regional Office, SCO No.123-124, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh.

…..Appellant

Versus

 

Vinod Kumar S/o Shri Om Parkash, R/o Bharat Nagar, Babail Road, Panipat.

                                      …..Respondent

 

CORAM:             Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.

                             Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                                                                                                                        

Present:              Shri Satpal Dhamija, Advocate counsel for the appellant.

Shri Gaurav Sharma, Advocate counsel for the respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1.      Complainant alleged that he got his vehicle Scorpio bearing temporary registration No. HR-99-NM (T)-1233, insured from opposite party (O.P.). The insurance policy was valid from 25.09.2012 to 24.09.2013.  He submitted file for registration before Registering Authority, Panipat on 16.11.2012 and chit was issued, which was valid upto 15.12.2012.  Lateron certificate of registration of this vehicle having registration No. HR-06Z-8745 was issued. Due to accident on 19.11.2012, the vehicle was totally damaged.  Intimation was given to O.P. vide letter dated 21.11.2012.  He spent Rs.1,22,000/- on repairs. Surveyor was appointed by O.P. to assess the loss, but, his claim was repudiated vide letter dated 20.06.2013 on the ground that at the time of accident the vehicle was not registered with Registration Authority.

2.      O.P. controverted his averments and alleged that insured lodged claim on temporary registration number. It deputed surveyor Naresh Kumar Gupta to assess the loss. Claim was repudiated vide letter dated 20.06.2013 on the ground that at the time of accident on 19.11.2012, the vehicle was not registered with Registration Authority, whereas as per section 39 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (In short M.V.Act”) it is compulsory to get the vehicle registered within 30 days from date of purchase from the Registration Authority.   The temporary registration was valid upto 24.10.2012. He violated the terms and conditions of M.V.Act, so his claim was rightly repudiated.

3.      After hearing both the parties, learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panipat (In short “District Forum”) allowed the complaint and ordered as under:-

“In view of the above discussion, present complaint succeeds. We hereby allow the present complaint with a direction to Opposite party to pay Rs.1,52,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till its realization.  Cost of litigation quantified at Rs.2200/- is also allowed to be paid by opposite parties to the complainant.”

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, opposite party has preferred this appeal.

5.      Arguments heard. File perused.

6.      Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that as per complainant accident took place on 19.11.2012. At that time vehicle was not registered with any authority, though it was purchased on 25.09.2012. Chit Ex.C-2, produced by the complainant, is not duly proved.  It is no where mentioned therein that for what purpose it was issued. As per verification report Ex.R-2 the complainant applied for registration on 20.11.2012. When the vehicle was not duly registered, complainant was not entitled for any compensation as opined by Hon’ble Supreme Court expressed in civil appeal No.8463 of 2014 titled as Narinder Singh Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. and others decided on 04.09.2014.  It was further argued that as per report of surveyor loss was to the tune of Rs.82,000/-, whereas the learned District forum has allowed Rs.1,52,000/-.  There is no justification in awarding Rs.1,52,000/-. So impugned order dated  02.01.2015 be set aside.

7.      However there is no dispute as far as the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court is concerned, but, the appellant/O.P. cannot derive any benefit from the same. From the perusal of Chit Ex.C-2, it is clear that the same was issued by registration authority, Panipat on 16.11.2012 and was valid up to 15.12.2012. It shows that complainant applied for registration before the accident.  On the basis of verification report Ex.R-2, submitted by advocate appointed by O.P., it cannot be presumed that complainant applied for RC on 20.11.2012.  Insurance company could have obtained report from office of Registration authority on the application.  When complainant had applied for registration certificate, but, was not issued, it cannot be alleged that he was at fault.  Had he not applied for registration or the chit issued by the registration authority had expired, then it could have been a different matter. 

8.      Now the question comes about the amount of compensation. As per report Ex.R-1 surveyor assessed loss to the tune of Rs.82,039/-. In his assessment, the estimated loss is mentioned as Rs.1,77,000/-.  From that amount he made so many deductions about towing charges, etc. just to reduce the compensation.  Instead of admitted loss of Rs.1,77,000/- District Forum has only given Rs.1,20,000/-.  So there is no ambiguity in this order as far as amount of compensation is concerned.  Findings of learned District Forum are well reasoned, based on law and facts and cannot be disturbed.  Hence the appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed.

9.      The statutory amount of Rs.25000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and verification.

March 17th, 2016

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

S.K.