State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Future Generali India Insurance Co. ... vs Paramjit Singh on 2 June, 2017
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No.917 of 2016
Date of institution : 06.12.2016
Reserved on : 25.05.2017
Date of decision : 02.06.2017
Future Generali India Insurance Company Limited, its Registered
Office at 6th Floor, Tower 3, Indiabulls Finance Centre, Senapati
Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road, Mumbai and having one of its
local Branch Office at SCO 128, Nagpal Towers, Ranjit Avenue,
Amritsar, through its General Manager/Branch Manager/Person
Overall Incharge, through its Authorised Officer.
....Appellant-Opposite Party
Versus
1. Paramjit Singh son of Shri Dalbir Singh, R/o H.No.304,
Village Mudhal, Near Verka, Tehsil and District Amritsar.
......Respondent No.1/Complainant
2. M/s A.B. Mehta Cars, Opposite Fateh Academy, G.T. Road,
Jandiala Guru, Amritsar through its Partner / Proprietor /
Manager/Overall Business Incharge.
3. HDFC Bank Ltd. having its Retail Loan Service Centre, 39,
Third Floor, The Mall, Mall Road, Amritsar through its
Manager/Person Overall Incharge.
...Respondents Nos.2 & 3-Opposite Parties Nos.1 & 3
First Appeal against the order dated
3.10.2016 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar.
First Appeal No.917 of 2016 2
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, President
Mr. Harcharan Singh Guram, Member.
Present:-
For the appellant : Shri Pardeep Kumar, Advocate. For respondent No.1: Shri Paramjit Singh (In Person). For respondent No.2: Deleted vide order dated 10.4.2017 For respondent No.3: Ms. Ramandeep Kaur, Advocate. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL, PRESIDENT The instant First Appeal has been preferred by the appellant/opposite party No.2 against the order dated 3.10.2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar (in short, "District Forum"), vide which the complaint filed by, Paramjit Singh, respondent No.1/complainant, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, was allowed with costs of ₹2,000/- and opposite party No.2 was directed to make payment of ₹5,29,355/-, as assessed by the Surveyor along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint until full and final recovery. Opposite party No.1 was directed to pay ₹10,000/-, as compensation to the complainant for its deficient service. However, complaint against opposite party No.3 was ordered to be dismissed.
2. It would be apposite to mention that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District Forum.
3. Brief facts, as averred in the complaint, are that the complainant purchased TATA SAFARI DICOR 2.2 EX 4 x 2 MFL make Tata Motors bearing Engine No.05446, chassis No.03281 Model 2014 having temporary registration No.PB-02-TC-0609 on First Appeal No.917 of 2016 3 21.11.2014 from opposite party No.1 after getting the same financed from opposite party No.3. Thereafter permanent RC in favour of the complainant was also issued with Registration No.PB-02-CM-7499 to the vehicle in question after the payment of RC charges to the tune of ₹72,228/-, ₹1,000/- as temporary number plate and ₹5,000/- as Misc. expenses on 21.11.2014 to opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.1 got the vehicle insured for ₹9,46,940/-, being its IDV, from opposite party No.2 for the period from 21.11.2014 to midnight of 20.11.2015 on the payment of ₹30,597/- as premium. On 28.12.2014 the complainant was driving the vehicle in question and he was having valid driving licence bearing No.PB0220070127020 issued on 19.7.2007 valid upto 25.8.2016 but unfortunately the vehicle met with an accident and the vehicle in question rolled down when brakes applied at Batala Road, Village Jahangeer, District Amritsar. On 29.12.2014 the vehicle was shifted to the agency of opposite party No.1 after making payment of ₹2,500/- for the recovery van. Intimation in that regard was given to opposite party No.2, who appointed its surveyor; namely, Rohit Kapoor to inspect and assess the loss and all the original documents were also supplied to him. The Surveyor of opposite party No.2 declared the vehicle as total loss after conducting its proper inspection. The complainant visited opposite party No.2 so many times and even made requests telephonically but it did not pay any heed to the genuine requests of the complainant. The claim of the complainant was not settled First Appeal No.917 of 2016 4 by opposite party No.2 despite the service of legal notice dated 18.4.2015. The complainant sought following reliefs in the instant complaint:-
(a) opposite parties be directed to pay a sum of ₹9,46,940/- being IDV or in the alternative to refund the price of the vehicle or to deliver new car of same model along with charges paid by the complainant in the shape of RC, Insurance etc. to the damaged vehicle; and
(b) compensation to the tune of ₹40,000/- may also be awarded to the complainant along with litigation expenses to the tune of ₹10,000/-.
4. Upon notice all the opposite parties appeared and filed their separate written versions. Opposite party No.1 in its written version took certain preliminary objections that the complainant has no locus-standi to file the present complaint against opposite party No.1 and that the complainant has not filed the complaint against the proper parties. The complainant got the car insured from opposite party No.2 and obtained the loan from opposite party No.3 but the complainant filed the present complaint against opposite party No.1 unnecessarily and without any cause of action. On merits, it is submitted that complainant had purchased a good quality car from opposite party No.1 and no complaint about the quality of the car was lodged. The car was delivered to the complainant in a good condition and the insurance policy of First Appeal No.917 of 2016 5 the car was purchased by the complainant directly from opposite party No.2 and the loan for the purchase of the car was directly given by opposite party No.3 to the complainant. All other allegations made in the complaint were denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint qua it was made.
5. Opposite party No.2 in its written version took certain preliminary objections that the complainant has concealed true and material facts from the District Forum and has not come to the District Forum with clean hands. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled for any relief and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The complainant lodged claim with the answering opposite party and after receiving the same an independent IRDA approved licensed Surveyor; namely, Er. Rohit Kapoor was appointed to assess the loss. It has been further averred that the accident took place on 28.12.2014 after more than one month from the purchase of vehicle. The Surveyor demanded temporary RC or Registration Certificate from the complainant but the same was not provided. After few days the complainant again submitted the delivery note dated 6.12.2014 of the vehicle and also provided the temporary registration certificate of the vehicle bearing No.PB-02-BW(T)- 9101 showing the validity from 6.12.2014 to 5.1.2015. When the contradictory documents were provided by the complainant, the Surveyor found that at the time of accident, the vehicle was carrying trade certificate No.PB-02-CT-0609 and the registration of the vehicle was applied on 30.12.2014 to 29.12.2019. It was also First Appeal No.917 of 2016 6 found that the vehicle was brought to the workshop on 5.12.2014 for its first free service and odometer reading was noted as 1489 Kilometers. From the copy of account statement of loan, it was found that the same was issued on 24.11.2014 and the policy was also issued on 21.11.2014, which was valid upto 20.11.2015. From all the above mentioned facts, it was found that the vehicle was purchased by the complainant on 23.11.2014 and he did not apply for registration certificate within the period required to apply the same. The temporary registration number was also expired on the date of accident. Therefore, the vehicle was being plied on the road without RC, which was a violation of provisions of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Hence, the complainant is not entitled to any insurance claim. It has further been averred that the complainant in connivance with dealer i.e. opposite party No.1 forged various documents to cover the period of accident in the validity of temporary number and provided the delivery note dated 6.12.2014, Form Receipt of Tax dated 30.12.2014, Form Receipt of Society Fee dated 30.12.2014, Temporary Certificate of Registration from 6.12.2014 to 5.1.2015, provisional Registration Certificate valid from 30.12.2014 to 30.1.2015, application for registration of motor vehicle dated 1.1.2015, Sale Certificate showing delivery of vehicle dated 29.12.2014 and the registration details in which the insurer of the vehicle has been shown as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Branch Bathinda for the period from 21.11.2014 to 20.11.2015. As per verification of First Appeal No.917 of 2016 7 temporary No.PB-02-BW(T)-9101 to 9400, it was found that the amount was deposited on 6.12.2014 for the said temporary numbers and the temporary number of the vehicle in question shows that it was allotted temporary No.PB-02-BW(T)-9101 whereas Tax Invoice shows that the vehicle was sold on 23.11.2014. How it is possible that the number allotted on 6.12.2014 was for the vehicle purchased on 23.11.2014? It shows that all these documents have been manipulated to get the claim. It is further averred that in the form of registration detail, the insurance particulars of the vehicle have been given as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Branch, Bathinda issued from 21.11.2014 to 20.11.2015 bearing Policy No.25252512 dated 1.2.2015 which shows that the vehicle was also insured from Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company and in case any liability arises at any point of time that is required to be divided between the replying opposite party and Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company, who was also insurer of the vehicle at the relevant time and it was necessary party and was required to be impleaded. Replying opposite party issued various letters demanding the documents and information from the complainant dated 14.1.2015, 4.2.2015, 4.3.2015, 17.4.2015 and 25.5.2015 but the complainant never complied with the same. Therefore, the claim was declared as not maintainable, vide letter dated 25.5.2015 and due information was sent to the complainant. All other allegations First Appeal No.917 of 2016 8 made in the complaint were denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made.
6. Opposite party No.3 in its separate written version admitted that the complainant availed loan from it and pleaded that it has no concern of whatsoever facts pleaded in the complaint. Opposite party No.3 took preliminary objections to the effect that the complaint does not disclose any cause of action against opposite party No.3 and it has been dragged into unwanted litigation. The complaint is legally not maintainable against it and is liable to be dismissed.
7. The parties produced evidence in support of their respective averments before the District Forum, which after going through the same and hearing learned counsel on their behalf, allowed the complaint, vide impugned order. Hence, this appeal.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the records of the case.
9. At the outset, it was vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the appellant-opposite party No.2 that the complainant purchased the vehicle described in para no.2 of the complaint from opposite party No.1 having temporary registration No.PB-02-TC- 0609 on 21.11.2014 after getting the same financed from opposite party No.3 and that the same was got insured for ₹9,46,940/-, being its IDV, from opposite party No.2 for the period from 21.11.2014 to midnight of 20.11.2015. The aforesaid temporary registration number was valid for a period of 30 days from the date First Appeal No.917 of 2016 9 of its issue i.e. till 20.12.2014. However, the complainant did not get the insured vehicle registered with the Registering Authority within 30 days nor applied for extension of temporary registration of the vehicle. The said vehicle met with an accident on 28.12.2014. Thereafter the registration certificate was applied and the same was issued on 30.12.2014 i.e. after the accident. It was further argued that as per the provisions of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, no vehicle shall be driven in any public place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with Chapter IV of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. As per the provisions of Section 43 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the temporary registration number is valid only for a period of 30 days within which period permanent registration number has to be obtained. Since the insured did not obtain the permanent registration number of the insured vehicle even after the expiry of 30 days till the date of accident, he certainly committed breach of the provisions of Section 39, 41 and 43 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The use of vehicle without registration is also punishable under Section 192 of the said Act and the same nowhere provides that if the vehicle is registered subsequently even on payment of late fee etc., then the offence committed under Section 192 thereof would not be considered as an offence. Learned counsel for the opposite parties relied upon judgment of Hon'ble National Commission passed in Revision Petition No.4043 of 2008 decided on 16.2.2012 (Kaushalendra Kumar Mishra v. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.), and the First Appeal No.917 of 2016 10 judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2014 (4) RCR (Civil) 272 (Narinder Singh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.). He prayed that the District Forum has committed the gravest error of law in allowing the complaint of the complainant and the impugned order passed by it suffers from illegality and infirmity. He further prayed that this appeal may be allowed and the impugned order passed by the District Forum be set aside.
10. Per contra it was argued by the complainant, who was present in person, that non-registration of the vehicle in question after the expiry of the temporary registration was not intentional and deliberate. The same is not material and is not fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The registration or non-registration of the vehicle has no nexus with the cause of accident of the vehicle in question. Moreover, once permanent registration of the vehicle was obtained on 30.12.2014 after paying the penal fee etc., it relates back from the date of purchase. There is no condition in the insurance policy that registration of the vehicle is a must because the Insurance Company has insured the vehicle on the basis of Engine Number and Chassis Number of the vehicle. It was further argued by the learned counsel for the complainant that if it is presumed that at the time of accident, the vehicle was not registered and it is the violation of terms and conditions of the policy, even then Insurance Company cannot repudiate the claim of the complainant only on this ground. It was further argued by him that the District Forum First Appeal No.917 of 2016 11 has rightly relied upon the judgments mentioned in the impugned order itself and has passed the well reasoned order. There is no illegality or infirmity in the same and the same is liable to be upheld.
11. It was argued by learned counsel for opposite party No.3 that opposite party No.3 has no concern with the present controversy as it had only provided loan facility to the complainant for the purchase of the said vehicle and it has been unnecessarily dragged into the present litigation by the complainant. Moreover, the complaint against opposite party No.3 has already been dismissed by the District Forum, vide impugned order.
12. We have given thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties.
13. Admittedly the vehicle in question was purchased on 21.11.2014 and the same was insured from opposite party No.2 for the period from 21.11.2014 to midnight of 20.11.2015, vide Cover Note Ex.C-3. The temporary registration number of the vehicle was valid for a period of one month i.e. till 20.12.2014. The accident occurred on 28.12.2014 after the expiry of the temporary registration number and the permanent registration number was obtained only on 30.12.2014 (Ex.C-11) two days after the date of accident. Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, reads as under:-
"39. Necessity for registration.--No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall First Appeal No.917 of 2016 12 cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this Chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner:
Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a motor vehicle in possession of a dealer subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government."
A perusal of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act, reproduced above, reveals that it is mandatory to get the vehicle registered in accordance with Chapter-IV, before driving the same in any public place or in any other place and the registration mark is required to be displayed on the vehicle in the prescribed manner.
11. Section 43 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, deals with the Temporary Registration of the vehicle, which is to be valid for a period not exceeding one month, and is renewable. The same reads as under:-
43. Temporary registration.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 40 the owner of a motor vehicle may apply to any registering authority or other prescribed authority to have the vehicle temporarily registered in the prescribed manner and for the issue in the prescribed First Appeal No.917 of 2016 13 manner of a temporary certificate of registration and a temporary registration mark.
(2) A registration made under this section shall be valid only for a period not exceeding one month, and shall not be renewable:
Provided that where a motor vehicle so registered is a chassis to which a body has not been attached and the same is detained in a workshop beyond the said period of one month for being fitted with a body or any unforeseen circumstances beyond the control of the owner], the period may, on payment of such fees, if any, as may be prescribed, be extended by such further period or periods as the registering authority or other prescribed authority, as the case may be, may allow.
(3) In a case where the motor vehicle is held under hire-
purchase agreement, lease or hypothecation, the registering authority or other prescribed authority shall issue a temporary certificate of registration of such vehicle, which shall incorporate legibly and prominently the full name and address of the person with whom such agreement has been entered into by the owner."
A perusal of Section 43 reveals that the temporary registration number will be valid for a period of one month and if not renewed, it lapses.
First Appeal No.917 of 2016 14
12. Section 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, reads as under:-
"192. Using vehicle without registration.--(1) Whoever drives a motor vehicle or causes or allows a motor vehicle to be used in contravention of the provisions of section 39 shall be punishable for the first offence with a fine which may extend to five thousand rupees but shall not be less than two thousand rupees for a second or subsequent offence with imprisonment which may extend to one year or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees but shall not be less than five thousand rupees or with both:
Provided that the Court may, for reasons to be recorded, impose a lesser punishment. (2) Nothing in this section shall apply to the use of a motor vehicle in an emergency for the conveyance of persons suffering from sickness or injuries or for the transport of food or materials to relieve distress or of medical supplies for a like purpose:
Provided that the person using the vehicle reports about the same to the Regional Transport Authority within seven days from the date of such use.
(3) The Court to which an appeal lies from any conviction in respect of an offence of the nature specified in sub-section (1), may set aside or vary any order made by the Court First Appeal No.917 of 2016 15 below, notwithstanding that no appeal lies against the conviction in connection with which such order was made."
A perusal of Section 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, makes it clear that any person who drives a motor vehicle or causes or allows a motor vehicle to be used in contravention of the provisions of Section 39 shall be punishable for the first offence with a fine which may extend to five thousand rupees but shall not be less than two thousand rupees for a second or subsequent offence with imprisonment which may extend to one year or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees but shall not be less than five thousand rupees or with both.
13. In the present case neither the vehicle was got registered permanently during the period for which the temporary registration number was in existence nor the temporary registration number was got extended. Even no application for registration of the vehicle permanently was made to the concerned Registering Authority. However, we want to notice some facts, which are relevant on the basis of which relief may be granted to the consumers in such matters. It is an admitted fact that when the insurance of the vehicle was done, it was done on the basis of engine number and chassis number of the vehicle and the same were duly mentioned in the insurance policy. There was no reference of any temporary registration number of the vehicle. Once a contract is entered into between a consumer and the Insurance Company on the basis of chassis number and engine First Appeal No.917 of 2016 16 number of the vehicle and not on the basis of the temporary registration number or permanent registration number, then the Insurance Company cannot escape its liability to pay the insurance claim where the same vehicle having same chassis number and engine number meets with an accident. The registration or non-registration of the vehicle temporarily or permanently has no nexus with the cause of accident of the vehicle. The contract of insurance is only based on the utmost good faith, which is applicable to both the parties. In the judgments cited at bar this aspect of the matter has not been considered and issue may be decided in an appropriate case. However, the facts in Narinder Singh's case (supra) were that the temporary registration granted in respect of the vehicle had expired before the date of the accident and permanent Registration Certificate had not been obtained. It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that using a vehicle on the road, without 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. In that case, the District Forum had allowed the complaint and had directed the insurance company to indemnify the complainant to the extent of 75%. Feeling aggrieved, the insurance company filed an appeal before the State Commission, which was allowed and complaint was dismissed. The complainant preferred revision petition before the Hon'ble National Commission, which was dismissed. The orders passed by First Appeal No.917 of 2016 17 the State Commission and Hon'ble National Commission were upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The present case is squarely covered by this judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and we are bound by the same. Therefore, the judgments relied upon by the District Forum in the impugned order are not applicable.
14. In view of the discussion held above, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order passed by the District Forum is set aside. The complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed with no order as to costs.
15. The appellant had deposited a sum of ₹25,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal. They deposited another sum of ₹2,39,677/- on 16.1.2017 in compliance of the order dated 16.12.2016 Both these sums along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to appellant-opposite party No.2, after the expiry of 45 days of the sending of certified copy of the order to them.
16. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
17. The copies be supplied to the parties in accordance with provisions of law.
(JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL) PRESIDENT (HARCHARAN SINGH GURAM) MEMBER June 02 , 2017.
Bansal