State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Smt.Maneesha vs Mahindra Finance on 26 April, 2023
Daily Order M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL FIRST APPEAL NO. 533 OF 2018 (Arising out of order dated 22.10.2018 passed in C.C.No.05/2016 by District Commission, Damoh) SMT. MANISHA DUBEY, W/O LATE SHRI UMASHANKAR DUBEY, R/O OPPOSITE RAILWAY STATION, PATHARIA, TEHSIL-PATHARIA, DISTRICT-DAMOH (M.P.) ... APPELLANT. Versus 1. MAHINDRA FINANCE, ABOVE GRAHASTHI, BALAKOT ROAD, NEAR NIRMAN, TANDON BAGICHA, DISTRICT-DAMOH (M.P.) 2. STAR AUTOMOBILES LIMITED, 60, TIRPURI CHOWK, NAGPUR ROAD, GARHA, JABALPUR (M.P.). 3. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. DIVISIONAL OFFICE, 290, NAPIER TOWN, JABALPUR (M.P.) ... RESPONDENTS. BEFORE : HON'BLE SHRI S. S. BANSAL : PRESIDING MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. (MRS) MONIKA MALIK : MEMBER COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :
Shri Suryakant Bhujade, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Mukesh Dubey, learned counsel for the respondent no.1.
Shri Mohan Chouksey, learned counsel for the respondent no.2.
Shri Ajmal Tirmizi, learned counsel for the respondent no.3.
O R D E R (Passed on 26.4.2023) The following order of the Commission was delivered by Dr. (Mrs) Monika Malik, Member:
This appeal by the complainant/appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'appellant') is directed against the order dated 22.10.2018 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Damoh (for short -2- 'District Commission') in C.C.No.05/2016, whereby the District Commission has dismissed the complaint filed by the appellant.
2. Briefly put, facts of the case are that the appellant's husband, Late Shri Umashankar Dubey, during his life time after obtaining financial assistance from the opposite party no.1 (hereinafter referred to as 'financer') on 28.02.2015, had purchased a 'Scorpio' from the opposite party no.2 (hereinafter referred to 'dealer') It is alleged that the financer at the time of financing the vehicle executed a hypothecation agreement, according to which the financer would keep the registration of the vehicle, after obtaining the same from the RTO. At the time of handing over the vehicle, temporary registration no. MP-34 TSE-0087 was given. Copy of hypothecation agreement was not provided to the late husband of the appellant. On 02.06.2015 her husband was murdered and he was taken to District Hospital, Damoh. When the appellant, along with her family members was travelling from Patharia to Damoh, the subject vehicle met with an accident and got damaged. It is submitted that at the time of purchase, the subject vehicle was insured with the opposite party no.3 (hereinafter referred to as 'insurance company'). As per conditions of hypothecation agreement, late husband of the appellant had paid three instalments of Rs.38,000/- each, to the financer and the liability of getting the vehicle registered was of the financer. On claim being made, the insurance company denied the same.
-3-Therefore, alleging deficiency in service on part of opposite parties, the appellant filed a complaint before the District Commission, seeking relief.
3. The opposite party no.1-financer in its reply before the District Commission submitted that that the appellant's husband did not repay the loan amount as per agreement and in order to escape from the liability to pay the loan amount, the appellant has filed the present complaint case on false grounds. In the agreement executed between the appellant's husband and the financer, it is made clear that the appellant's husband will get the registration of the vehicle done on his own. There is no deficiency in service on part of the financer and it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed with costs.
4. The opposite party no.2-dealer in its reply before the District Commission submitted that the appellant's husband had purchased a 'Scorpio S-6' on 28.02.2015 from their showroom and on the very same day retail invoice & sale certificate were given to him. There has been no deficiency in service on dealer's part. It is therefore prayed that the complaint be dismissed with costs.
5. The opposite party no.3-insurance company in its reply before the District Commission submitted that the appellant had informed the insurance company about the accident on 15.07.2015. The insurance company appointed surveyor-Shri P. K. Marwaha. The subject vehicle at the -4- time of the accident was not registered. The vehicle was used in violation of Section 39, 43 & 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'MVAct'). The claim is not payable as per policy terms and conditions and therefore the insurance company has rightly denied the claim. There has been no deficiency in service on part of the insurance company.
6. The District Commission dismissed the complaint holding that there is no deficiency in service on part of the insurance company in denying the claim. The appellant has not been able to prove any deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties.
7. Heard.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant's late husband had paid registration charges to the dealer, but no receipt in this regard was given by the dealer. The subject vehicle could not get permanently registered because of fault on dealer's and financer's part and the insurance company has been further deficient in service, in denying the claim of the accidental vehicle.
9. Learned counsel for the financer argued that the District Commission has elaborately discussed all the aspects involved in the matter. The financer was nowhere involved in carrying out registration of the subject vehicle.
-5-10. Learned counsel appearing for the dealer supported the impugned order and opposed the plea taken by the counsel for the appellant. It is argued that the appellant had never taken such plea before the District Commission. Her late husband did not deposit any registration charges with the dealer and therefore registration certificate was not issued.
11. Learned counsel for the insurance company supporting the impugned order argued that it has rightly been held by the District Commission that the subject vehicle was being used in contravention of the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act. The claim is hence not payable.
12. On careful perusal of record of the District Commission, we find that there is no evidence which could demonstrate that the appellant's late husband paid amount towards registration of the subject vehicle. The District Commission after appreciation of evidence on record has rightly held that the hypothecation agreement nowhere points towards the role of financer in process for registration of the subject vehicle.
13. The District Commission has made an observation that the vehicle which was not registered, was being used in violation of Motor Vehicles Act and the temporary registration of the same was done after 9 days of the incident i.e. on 11.06.2015.
-6-14. Here it is important to mention relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. In Chapter IV, Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which deals with registration of motor vehicles provides thus:
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.
Chapter XIII lays down provisions for Offence, Penalties & Procedure under 'MVAct'. Under this Chapter, Section 192 of MVAct is in relation to using vehicle without registration and reads thus:
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).....
(3)....
[Explanation--Use of a motor vehicle in contravention of the provisions of section 56 shall be deemed to be a contravention of the provisions of section 39 and shall be punishable in the same manner as provided in sub-section (1)] -7-
15. A collaborative reading of the aforesaid sections makes it clear that no motor vehicle can be driven in any public place unless the same is registered and driving the unregistered motor vehicle in contravention of Section 39 is laid down as a punishable offence under Section 192 of the 'MVAct'.
16. Applying the provisions contained in Chapter IV & XIII of the 'MVAct', it is observed that the subject vehicle at the time of accident was unregistered, which is against the provisions of the 'MVAct', and was actually being used in a manner which is punishable under offence delineated under the 'MVAct'. Therefore, we conclude that in such circumstances, the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the loss and has rightly disallowed the claim of the complainant/appellant.
17. We do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. It is hereby affirmed.
18. As a result, this appeal filed by the appellant, which is devoid of any merit is dismissed, with no order as to costs.
(S. S. BANSAL) (DR. MONIKA MALIK) PRESIDING MEMBER MEMBER