National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Gupreet Singh Dheri vs United India Insurance Company Ltd. & 2 ... on 9 May, 2018
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 2807 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 04/11/2016 in Appeal No. 05/2014 of the State Commission Punjab) 1. GUPREET SINGH DHERI R/O. BEGAMPUR JANDIALA, TEHSIL, HOSHIARPUR ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & 2 ORS. THROUGH ITS BRANCH MANAGER, DIVISION OFFICER NO. 1,19, G.T. ROAD, JALANDHAR PUNJAB 2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, HEAD OFFICE AT 24, WHITE ROAD, CHENNAI-600014 TAMIL NADU 3. CARGO MOTOR PRIVATE LIMITED THROUGH ITS BRANCH MANAGER, NEAR AMBEY VALLY, BHARWAIN ROAD HOSHIARPUR PUNJAB ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MRS. REKHA GUPTA,PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. ANUP K THAKUR,MEMBER For the Petitioner : MR. R.K. KAPOOR For the Respondent :
Dated : 09 May 2018 ORDER REKHA GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER
The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 4th November 2016 of the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh in First Appeal no. 5 of 2014.
2. The brief facts of the case as per the petitioner/ complainant are that he had purchased an Indigo Car bearing registration no. PB 07-AE-0602 from respondent no. 3/OP no.3 for a sale consideration of Rs.5,24,700/- by availing loan and paid the above said amount by paying regular instalments of Rs.7000/- per month. The above said car was duly insured with respondent nos. 1 and 2/OPs no.1 and 2, vide policy no.02090031110110029132 on 09.09.2011, which was valid up to 08.09.2012. Unfortunately, on 16.01.2012, when the petitioner was returning to his village the car in question met with an accident, when suddenly stray animals came in front of the vehicle at Village Bullowal near Deep Palace,. At the time of accident, the car was being driven by the petitioner. He had suffered multiple injuries in the said accident. The petitioner was admitted to the Jyoti Janta Hospital Bullowal for his treatment. After getting discharge from the Hospital, he was advised bed rest by the doctor due to multiple injuries. After eight days of the accident, when he was able to walk on his leg, he immediately informed the authorized agent of the respondent nos.1 and 2 on 24.01.2012. Respondent no.3 immediately forwarded the case of the petitioner to the officials of respondent nos.1 and 2. The vehicle of the petitioner was fully damaged in the said accident. The matter regarding the accident was duly reported to the police by the petitioner and a DDR No.13 dated 24.01.2012 was duly registered by the police authorities Bhulhowal in this regard. The officials of respondent no.3 assessed the loss as a total loss of car @ Rs.5,91,456/-. After the accident, surveyor Rajeshwar Nath was duly appointed by the respondent nos.1 and 2, who received all the documents from the petitioner, as per the demand of the respondents. It was informed by the surveyor of respondent nos.1 and 2 in March 2012 to the petitioner that his claim had been approved by the respondent nos.1 and 2 and he would receive the claim amount in one month. But later on the surveyor of the company dragged on the matter either on one pretext or the other. Even after receiving all the documents, the claim of the petitioner has not been settled by the respondents nor any payment regarding the loss to the vehicle has been paid to the petitioner by respondents till today, rather respondents have been harassing the petitioner without any cause. He also served a legal notice upon respondent nos.1 and 2 on 15.01.2013, but to no effect. The petitioner has, thus, filed a consumer complaint directing the respondents to pay Rs.5,91,456/- on account of the total loss of the car Indigo bearing no.PB-07-AE-0602 illegally withheld by respondents and to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental tension, harassment and financial loss to the petitioner.
3. Upon notice, respondent nos.1 and 2 appeared and filed their written reply and contested the complaint of the petitioner raising preliminary objections that the complaint was not maintainable. Any deficiency in service on the part of respondent was vehemently denied. Respondents averred that as per the documents supplied by the petitioner, the vehicle was without registration number at the time of accident, thus violating the statutory provision of Motor Vehicle Act and policy terms and conditions. Even the temporary registration no.PB07/Temp-3762 allotted to the vehicle for the period 12.09.2011 to 11.10.2011 had already expired. The vehicle was got registered by the petitioner after the accident and the permanent registration number was allotted to the car bearing no. PB07-AE-0602 and the date of registration as per of registration certificate was 28.01.2012. The petitioner was intimated, vide letters dated 15.10.2012 and 02.11.2012 to explain the delay of 21 days in intimating the loss to the respondents. The alleged accident took place on 16.01.2012, whereas the insurance company was intimated of loss on 05.02.2012. A surveyor and loss assessor i.e. M/s Leo Alex was deputed by the respondent nos.1 and 2 to assess the loss to the vehicle, who after conducting the survey, submitted survey report dated 25.05.2012 assessing the loss to the tune of Rs.2,50,000/- on the basis of net salvage. During the course of processing of the claim, it was found that vehicle was not registered at the time of accident with the Registering Authority and even the temporary registration number had expired much prior to the date of loss on 16.01.2012. The respondent no.1, vide letter dated 24.12.2012 asked the petitioner to supply the cash deposit receipt of deposit made with District Transport Officer for permanent registration of the vehicle and the explanation of delay of 21 days in intimating the loss to respondent. The petitioner instead of supplying the requisite documents and explaining the delay, served upon the respondents a legal notice dated 15.01.2013, which was appropriately replied, vide reply dated 28.01.2013 to a legal notice. Thereafter through their counsel they again asked the petitioner to furnish the cash receipt of deposit of registration charges for registration of the vehicle and for an explanation for the delay in intimation of loss to the insurance company. The petitioner failed to furnish the requisite documents and in explaining the delay in intimation of loss in accident to insurer, as such, the claim of the petitioner was repudiated, vide letter dated 02.04.2013. Rest of the averments have been denied by respondent nos.1 and 2 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. Respondent no.3 appeared and filed their written reply and contested the complaint of the petitioner raising preliminary objections that complaint was not maintainable. Any deficiency in service on the part of respondent no.3 was vehemently denied. It was averred that vehicle was purchased from respondent no.3 and the same had been hypothecated with M/s Tata Motors Finance Limited. The vehicle in question was brought to the workshop of respondent no.3 in a very damaged condition and an estimate of Rs.591456/- was prepared. Rest of the averments were denied and respondent no.3 prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.
5. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, ('the District Forum') vide its order dated 26.11.2013 while allowing the complaint gave the following order:
"In view of the above discussion, the complaint is partly accepted and the opposite party insurance company is directed to pay 75% of the insured Declared Value, i.e., Rs.5,10,815/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint till payment and further Rs.3,000/- on account of litigation expenses. The complainant shall produce the certificate of the amount due to the above said finance company, if any, and the insurance company shall firstly pay the claim amount to the said finance company and the balance, if any, shall be payable to the complainant. The insurance company shall be entitled to the salvage".
6. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the respondent nos. 1 and 2/ OP nos. 1 and 2 filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission while allowing the appeal and dismissing the complaint held as under:
"7. The only point argued before us in this appeal by the appellant is that the vehicle was not registered at the time of accident and as such, it is fundamental breach of the policy. It was further emphasized that Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is mandatory in nature and no vehicle can be plied on the road without registration certificate therefor. The District Forum duly considered this point in the order under challenge in this case. The District Forum referred to law laid down by Supreme Court in National "Insurance Company Ltd.. versus.. Nitin Khandelwal," reported in IV (2008) CPJI (SC) that if there was no nexus between the cause of claim with the breach of the terms and conditions of the policy, then the insured is entitled to insurance claim to the extent of 75% on nonstandard basis. The District Forum also relied upon law laid down by our State Commission in " Surinder Kumar Mahajan versus National Insurance Company Ltd" reported in 2012(1) CLT Page 464. The latest judgment by Hon'ble Supreme Court in " Narinder Singh versus New India Assurance Company Ltd" and others reported in 2013(3) CLT 82 was also cited and discussed in the order. The District Forum ignored the law laid down by Supreme Court in Narinder Singh versus New India Assurance Company Ltd and others (supra) and preferred to rely upon the law laid down in Nitin Khandelwal case (supra). Both authorities are given by Apex Court. The Apex Court has held in Narinder Singh versus New India Assurance Company Ltd ( supra) that Section 39 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is mandatory in nature. Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act is reproduced as under:-
39. Necessity for registration - No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall 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.
It is, thus, evident that from perusal of Section 39, as well as, latest law of Supreme Court in Narinder Singh's Case (supra), which has even been followed by National Commission in many authorities, that no person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered. We, thus, hold that vehicle could not be plied on the road without holding valid registration certificate issued by competent authority.
8. Admittedly, accident took place of the vehicle of the insured on 16.01.2012. The complainant purchased the vehicle from OP no.3 on 09.09.2011. Temporary registration certificate is granted for a period of one month, unless it is specifically extended by the competent authority. The temporary registration certificate of the vehicle is at Page 83 of the District Forum, which was valid from 12.09.2011 to 11.10.2011 only. The accident took place on 16.01.2012. The temporary registration certificate had already expired. There is no evidence aliunde on the record to prove that this temporary registration certificate was ever extended thereafter by the competent registering authority. It is, thus, evident from perusal of the permanent registration certificate Ex.C-7 that vehicle was registered on 23.01.2012. On the date of accident, the vehicle carried no permanent registration certificate. The District Forum settled the claim on the basis of non-standard basis by relying upon judgment of Apex Court in Nitin Khandelwal (supra) . The latest law laid down by Supreme Court in Narinder Singh (supra) would prevail because Section 39 of Motor Vehicles Act has been held to be mandatory and it is violation of fundamental breach of the policy. Even if, the ground of late intimation to OPs about this accident is not given much significance in view of Nitin Khandelwal case (supra), even then, the non-registration of the vehicle at the time of the accident when it was plied on public place is fundamental breach of the policy. On account of violation of mandatory Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act, as per latest judgment of Supreme Court in Narinder Singh Case (supra), it would be fundamental breach of the policy. Consequently, the District Forum failed to appreciate the matter in proper perspective. The order of the District Forum under challenge in this case dated 26.11.2013 cannot be upheld in this appeal and is ordered to be set aside.
9. As a result of our above discussion, appeal is of the appellants is accepted and order of the District Forum is set aside resulting into dismissal of the complaint of the complainant now respondent no.1 in this appeal.
10. The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- in this Commission at the time of filing the appeal and further deposited Rs.25,000/- in compliance of the order of this Commission. Both these amounts with interest, if any, accrued thereon, be refunded by the registry to the appellants by way of crossed cheque/demand draft after 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
7. Hence, the present revision petition.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. He contended that admittedly the vehicle of the petitioner was insured at the time of accident. The District Forum had rightly accepted the claim of the petitioner in part and granted some relief to the petitioner in view of the Supreme Court's Oder in the case National Insurance Company Ltd., vs Nitin Khandelwal.
9. We have gone through the record. Admittedly on the date of the accident, i.e., 16.01.2012 the vehicle was not registered. The vehicle was registered after the accident on 28.01.2012 and was allotted registration no.PB 07 AE 0602. It is seen that when the respondent nos.1 and 2 had requested the petitioner to furnish the requisite documents to establish whether he had applied for the registration and asked him to furnish the cash receipts for deposit of registration charges for registration, he had failed to do so.
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Narinder Singh vs New India Assurance Company Ltd., and Others (Civil Appeal No. 8463 of 2014) decided on 04.09.2014 has held as under:
11. We have perused the order passed by the three Forums. The only issue for consideration is, as to whether the National Commission is correct in law in holding that the appellant is not entitled to claim compensation for damages in respect of the vehicle when admittedly the vehicle was being driven on the date of accident without any valid registration as contemplated under the provisions of Section 39 and Section 43 of Motor Vehicles Act. For better appreciation, Section 39 and Section 43 which are relevant are quoted herein below:-
"39. Necessity for registration.--No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall 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.
"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 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."
12. A bare perusal of Section 39 shows that no person shall drive the motor vehicle in any public place without any valid registration granted by the registering authority in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
13. However, according to Section 43, the owner of the vehicle may apply to the registering authority for temporary registration and a temporary registration mark. If such temporary registration is granted by the authority, the same shall be valid only for a period not exceeding one month. The proviso to Section 43 clarified that the period of one month may be extended for such a further period by the registering authority only in a case where a temporary registration is granted in respect of chassis to which 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 unforeseen circumstances beyond the control of the owner.
14. Indisputably, a temporary registration was granted in respect of the vehicle in question, which had expired on 11.1.2006 and the alleged accident took place on 2.2.2006 when the vehicle was without any registration. Nothing has been brought on record by the appellant to show that before or after 11.1.2006, when the period of temporary registration expired, the appellant, owner of the vehicle either applied for permanent registration as contemplated under Section 39 of the Act or made any application for extension of period as temporary registration on the ground of some special reasons. In our view, therefore, 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 policy contract.
11. The above facts of the case are squarely applicable to the instant case. The District Forum had allowed the complainant on the basis of Supreme Court's order in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd., vs Niti Khandelwal. The facts of the case are not applicable to the case on hand. The said case related to theft of a vehicle and the Supreme Court had held that in the case of theft the nature of use of the vehicle cannot be looked into and the insurance company cannot repudiate the claim on that basis. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that:
12. In the case in hand, the vehicle has been snatched or stolen. In the case of theft of vehicle breach of condition is not germane. The appellant Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle when the insurer has obtained comprehensive policy for the loss caused to the insurer. The respondent submitted that even assuming that there was a breach of condition of the insurance policy, the 8appellant Insurance Company ought to have settled the claim on non-standard basis. The Insurance Company cannot repudiate the claim in toto in case of loss of vehicle due to theft.
12. In view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision, the District Forum erred in allowing the claim on non-standard basis, as the present case pertains to an accident and not of theft and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Narinder Singh (Supra) dated 04.09.2014 had clearly held as under:
'In our view, therefore, using 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".
13. Hence, held that the insurance company could not be found deficient in service in repudiating the claim.
14. In view of the above, we find no jurisdictional error or material irregularity in the impugned order which may call for interference in exercise of powers under section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The revision petition is dismissed.
...................... REKHA GUPTA PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... ANUP K THAKUR MEMBER