Delhi District Court
Sh. Rahul Kumar vs M/S T.R. Sawhney Motors Pvt. Ltd on 25 January, 2023
IN THE COURT OF MS. BARKHA GUPTA, DISTRICT
JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT), NORTH-EAST,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
C.S. 10/2022
CNR No. DLNE01-000096-2022
Sh. Rahul Kumar,
S/o Sh. Amar Pal,
R/o House No. A-228/A, Som Bazar,
Gamri Extension, Garhi Mendu,
Delhi-110053.
......Plaintiff
Versus
1. M/s T.R. Sawhney Motors Pvt. Ltd.,
Through its Director/Manager,
At: 33-34, Harchand Melaram Complex,
East Gokalpur, Main Wazirabad Road,
Delhi-110094.
....Defendant No. 1
2. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Through its Regional Director/Manager,
B-39, Inner Circle Connaught Place,
New Delhi-110001. ....Defendant No. 2
Date of Institution : 12.01.2022
Final arguments : 11.01.2023
Date of decision : 25.01.2023
JUDGMENT
1. The plaintiff Sh. Rahul Kumar (hereinafter referred to as the 'plaintiff') has filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 5,87,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Eighty Seven Thousand Only) alongwith damages against the defendants namely 'M/s T.R.Sawhney C.S. (Comm.) 10/2022 Rahul Kumar Vs. M/s T.R.Sawhney Motors & Anr. page no.1 of 17 Motors Pvt. Ltd.' (hereinafter referred to as the 'defendant no. 1') through its Director/Manager and 'United India Insurance Co. Ltd.' (hereinafter referred to as the 'defendant no. 2') through its Regional Director/Manager .
2. Brief facts of the case as revealed from the plaint are that on 15.11.2019, the plaintiff visited showroom of the defendant no.1 and finalized the deal with it to purchase a Maruti Wagon R-Vxi AGS 1.0LWAA4AV100, Magma Grey Colour (27Q), having Chasis no. MA3JMT31SKJ222473, Engine No. K10BN- 8295704 (hereinafter referred to as the 'vehicle').
Further, on 16.11.2019, the defendant no.1 raised an invoice no. TRSD/1920/N7008 and on the same day, the plaintiff paid the entire amount towards purchase of vehicle to the defendant no.1 and he also gave a sum of Rs.27,370/- to the defendant no.1 for getting the vehicle registered in his name with the Transport Authority. Further, the plaintiff also paid requisite charges for getting the vehicle insured in his name and state that on 29.11.2019, the vehicle was duly insured in his name by the defendant no.2 for a period of one year.
The plaintiff further submit that on 04.12.2019, defendant no.1 delivered him the vehicle and also gave a temporary Registration No. DL-5TC-0047, which was valid for a period of one month and the defendant no.1 also assured him that within that period, the vehicle would be registered in his name by the Transport Authority.
3. The plaintiff further submit that on 14.12.2019, at the C.S. (Comm.) 10/2022 Rahul Kumar Vs. M/s T.R.Sawhney Motors & Anr. page no.2 of 17 request of his friend Shri Subodh, who is in Delhi Police, he lent his vehicle to him for one/two days. Further, on 15.12.2019, Shri Subodh was deployed on urgent duty at JNU, Delhi, where protests were going on and so, Shri Subodh parked the vehicle at the side of the road and joined his duty. However, at about 04:30 p.m., the protesters/mob got violent and damaged/ put on fire various vehicles including vehicle of the plaintiff, in which regard, an FIR bearing no. 0242/2019 under Section 43/147/148/149/188/353/332/302/427/435/323/341/120-B/34IPC and 3/4 PDPP Act, 1984 was also lodged by him at P.S. New Friends Colony, Delhi.
4. The plaintiff further submit that thereafter, he approached the defendant no.2 i.e. the 'United India Insurance Co. Ltd' to claim the amount towards damages caused to his vehicle, however, the defendant no.2 arbitrarily rejected his claim on the ground that as on 15.12.2019, when the vehicle was damaged/burnt by the protesters, it was not registered in his name by the Transport Authority and state that the Transport Authority had already registered the vehicle in his name on 15.12.2019, but defendant no.2 ignored it.
5. The plaintiff submit that both the defendants are jointly and severally bound to pay him the sum of Rs.5,87,000/- alongwith interest @ 2% per month till realization and pray that decree may be passed in his favour and against the defendants and further pray that the defendants are also liable to pay him C.S. (Comm.) 10/2022 Rahul Kumar Vs. M/s T.R.Sawhney Motors & Anr. page no.3 of 17 Rs. 2,00,000/- each towards mental pain and agony.
6. The defendant no. 1 i.e. 'M/s T.R. Sawhney Motors', in its written statement submit that the plaintiff had purchased the vehicle from it and it was duly insured with the defendant no.2 for a period of one year from 29.11.2019 till 28.11.2020 and has filed the copy of Insurance Certificate issued by the defendant no.2. Further, the defendant no.1 delivered the vehicle to the plaintiff on 14.12.2019 and also gave him a temporary registration no. DL-5TC-0047, which was valid for a period of one month and assured him that within the said period, the formalities for registration for getting the vehicle registered in the name of the plaintiff with the Transport Authority would be complied with.
7. The defendant no.1 also submit that it applied for registration of vehicle in the name of plaintiff with the Transport Authority in time on 10.12.2019 and on 15.12.2019, the vehicle was duly registered in the name of the plaintiff by the Transport Authority and hence, the defendant no.2, with whom the vehicle was insured w.e.f 29.11.2019 till 28.11.2020 is liable to pay the damages towards loss in the vehicle to the plaintiff and pray that the suit of the plaintiff may be dismissed against it being devoid of any merits.
8. The defendant no.2 i.e. 'United India Insurance Co. Ltd', in its written statement admit that the vehicle was duly insured C.S. (Comm.) 10/2022 Rahul Kumar Vs. M/s T.R.Sawhney Motors & Anr. page no.4 of 17 with it vide Private Car Insurance Policy bearing no. 0428003119P111440948 from 29.11.2019 to 28.11.2020 i.e. for a period of one year.
It further submit that the plaintiff himself had violated the provisions of Sections 39, 41, 43 and 192 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and submit that the insurance policy is a contract like any other contract and the plaintiff is bound by its terms and conditions.
9. The defendant no.2 also submit that the vehicle was damaged on 15.12.2019, however, on that date, neither the vehicle had any temporary registration number nor the vehicle was registered by the Transport Authority in the name of the plaintiff. It further submit that the plaintiff had applied for registration of the vehicle before the Transport Authority only on 15.12.2019 at 07:18 p.m. i.e. after the vehicle was damaged.
Further, the temporary registration number was valid only for 30 days and within that period, permanent registration number has to be obtained, however, the plaintiff neither had the temporary registration number of the vehicle nor applied for permanent registration number with the Transport Authority during or after 30 days. It further submit that the vehicle was not having any temporary registration number or permanent registration number and no application for registration of the vehicle was filed before the Transport Authority before the date of damage and relies upon a judgment titled as "United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Sushil Kumar Godara", Civil C.S. (Comm.) 10/2022 Rahul Kumar Vs. M/s T.R.Sawhney Motors & Anr. page no.5 of 17 Appeal No.5887/2021 decided on 30.09.2021. It prays that it is not liable to pay anything to the plaintiff and hence, suit of the plaintiff may be dismissed.
10. The plaintiff, in the replication has denied the submissions of the defendants and emphasized whatever he has mentioned in the plaint, which is not discussed here for the sake of brevity.
11. As per record, vide order dated 25.03.2022 following, issues were framed by my Ld. Predecessor:-
i) Whether the plaintiff used or permitted to use the subject matter car on 14.12.2019 and 15.12.2019 without having the requisite registration in accordance with the relevant provisions of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988? OPD2
ii) If answer of issue No.1 is in affirmative, whether the defendant no. 2 is absolved of its liability under the subject matter insurance policy for that reason? OPD2.
iii) Whether defendant no. 1 has any liability towards the plaintiff? If so, to what extent?OPP
iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.5,87,000/- or any other amount from the defendants or any of them? OPP
v) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to pendente lite and future interest on the amount, if any, found payable to the plaintiff? If so, at what rate and for what period?
OPP C.S. (Comm.) 10/2022 Rahul Kumar Vs. M/s T.R.Sawhney Motors & Anr. page no.6 of 17
vi) Relief.
12. The plaintiff, in support of his case examined himself as PW1. The defendant no. 1 examined its Accounts Manager Shri Anil Mishra as DW1. The defendant no.2 examined Shri. Rajesh Kumar, (Sr. Assistant, Transport Authority, Loni Road, Delhi) as D2W1 and further examined Shri Ankit Malik, who is Junior Assistant from the Transport Department, Loni Road Authority, Delhi as D2W2.
13. I have heard final arguments as advanced by Advocate Sh. Ram Lal, learned counsel for the plaintiff, Advocate Sh. N.K. Rathi, learned counsel for the defendant no. 1 and Advocate Sh. Pramod Kumar, learned counsel for the defendant no. 2 and have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by them. I have also perused the material as placed on record.
14. Now, in the succeeding paragraphs, Issue nos. 1 and 2 are discussed together being inter-related:-
Issue No. 1:-
"Whether the plaintiff used or permitted to use the subject matter car on 14.12.2019 and 15.12.2019 without having the requisite registration in accordance with the relevant provisions of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988?" OPD2 Issue No. 2:-
"If answer of issue No.1 is in affirmative, whether the C.S. (Comm.) 10/2022 Rahul Kumar Vs. M/s T.R.Sawhney Motors & Anr. page no.7 of 17 defendant no. 2 is absolved of its liability under the subject matter insurance policy for that reason?"
OPD2 The onus to prove both these issues is on the defendant no. 2 i.e 'United India Insurance Co. Ltd'.
15. The defendant no. 2 examined Shri Rajesh Kumar (Sr. Assistant, Transport Authority, Loni Road, Delhi), who is a summoned witness as D2W1. He brought the record/documents pertaining to registration of the vehicle no. DL 5CR-2057 and proved its copy as Ex. D2W1/1 (OSR). He also brought other particulars of the vehicle, Tax invoice, Disclaimer, Form no.20, Form no.21, Form no.22, Tax Invoice issued by Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Customer details, Form no.34, Aadhar Card of the plaintiff/owner of the vehicle and proved them as Ex. D2W1/2 (Colly) (OSR).
16. During cross-examination on behalf of the plaintiff, he stated that he deals with the transfer/registration of the vehicles in the office from 08:30 am to 04:30 pm. He also stated that the process of registration of the vehicle in the name of the plaintiff started on 10.12.2019 and the vehicle was registered in the name of the plaintiff on 15.12.2019.
17. At this juncture, it is pertinent to discuss that the defendant no.2, re-examined him, during which, D2W1 stated that data of the vehicle was fed by 'M/s TR Sawhney Motors' (i.e. defendant C.S. (Comm.) 10/2022 Rahul Kumar Vs. M/s T.R.Sawhney Motors & Anr. page no.8 of 17 no.1) and it was duly approved by the Transport Authority. He also stated that the dealer can also initiate the process of registration of the vehicle 'Online' any time and even during the night. He also stated that only the date of uploading of the data is shown and time is not reflected in the document. He admit that the data for registration of the vehicle on the 'Vahan Portal' is authentic and proved it as Ex.D2W1/3.
18. During cross-examination on behalf of the plaintiff, D2W1 stated that the data of the vehicle on 'Vahan Portal' is not uploaded by the Transport Authority and it was uploaded by the defendant no.1. He also stated that the actual time of registration of the vehicle is not mentioned in the record of the Transport Department and he could neither admit nor deny if there was any gap of hours/time between the actual time of uploading of the data by the dealer on 'Vahan Portal' and registration of the vehicle by the Transport Department.
He also stated that the Transport Department registered the vehicle bearing no. DL 5CR-2057 in the name of the plaintiff on 15.12.2019 during office hours and volunteered that the office hours can also be extended beyond 4:30 p.m, if need so arises, however, he could not tell whether on 15.12.2019, the office/working hours of the Transport Authority were extended or not.
19. From the perusal of record, it is also revealed that though, initially, the defendant no.1 did not cross examine D2W1, but C.S. (Comm.) 10/2022 Rahul Kumar Vs. M/s T.R.Sawhney Motors & Anr. page no.9 of 17 later on, on its application, Shri Ankit Malik (Junior Assistant, Transport Department, Loni Road Authority, Delhi) appeared on 10.10.2022 and during his cross examination by defendant no.1, he stated that the defendant no.1 had already started/initiated the registration process of the vehicle no. DL-5CR-2057 and on 15.12.2019, the Transport Department issued the registration no. DL-5CR-2057 to the vehicle. He also stated that the Transport Department does not maintain any record of time of registration of the vehicles.
20. The defendant no.1 i.e. 'M/s T.R. Sawhney Motors' examined its Accounts Manager/ Authorized Representative Shri Anil Mishra as DW-1, who testified vide his affidavit Ex. DW1 bearing his signatures at points A and B, wherein he deposed whatever the defendant no.1 has stated in the written statement, which is not repeated here for the sake of brevity.
He also testified that the defendant no.1 had duly complied with the formalities for registration of the vehicle in the name of the plaintiff on 10.12.2019 and the vehicle was registered in the name of the plaintiff on 15.12.2019. He proved the copy of the receipt/certificate issued by the Transport Department GNCTD as Mark A. He also testified that the vehicle was insured with the defendant no.2 vide Insurance Certificate Mark B.
21. During cross-examination on behalf of the plaintiff, DW1 inter alia stated that when the vehicle was sold to the plaintiff, he also gave the requisite amount to the defendant no.1 to get it registered in his name with the Transport Authority. He also C.S. (Comm.) 10/2022 Rahul Kumar Vs. M/s T.R.Sawhney Motors & Anr. page no.10 of 17 stated that the vehicle was duly insured with the defendant no.2 on 29.11.2019. He further stated that a temporary number was also given to the vehicle at the time of its delivery to the defendant no.1 for transporting it from one place to another by Maruti Company.
He further stated that on 10.12.2019, the defendant no.1 had filed an application with the Transport Authority for registration of the vehicle in the name of the plaintiff and on 15.12.2019, the Transport Authority registered the vehicle in the name of the plaintiff.
22. The plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and adduced his evidence vide his affidavit Ex. PW1/1 bearing his signatures at points A and B respectively, wherein he reiterated whatever he has stated in the plaint, which is not repeated here for the sake of brevity. He has also relied upon the following documents:-
1. Copy of the invoice dated 16.11.2019 as Ex. PW1/A (OSR).
2. Copy of register of defendant no.1 dated 04.12.2019, showing the entry of the vehicle in question regarding sending it outside the showroom after delivery as Mark A.
3. Copy of the gate pass dated 04.12.2019 as Mark B.
4. Computer generated copy of Insurance Policy dated 29.11.2019 issued by defendant no. 2 as Mark D.
5. Photograph showing temporary registration number of the vehicle in question as DL 5TC 0047 as C.S. (Comm.) 10/2022 Rahul Kumar Vs. M/s T.R.Sawhney Motors & Anr. page no.11 of 17 Mark E.
6. Copy of DD No. 23, dated 15.12.2019 PS Hazrat Nizamuddin, Delhi as Mark F.
7. Photograph of the burnt car in question as Mark G.
8. Copy of FIR No. 242/2019, PS New Friends Colony, New Delhi as Mark H.
9. Original of rejection of his claim dated 10.02.2020 as Ex.PW1/I.
10. Copy of the receipt dated 04.01.2020 as Mark I. The plaintiff, vide his affidavit Ex.PW-1/A also testified that on 15.12.2019, when the vehicle was damaged by the mob/protesters, it was already registered in his name by the Regional Transport Authority.
23. During his cross-examination by the defendant no. 1, the plaintiff/PW1 inter alia stated that the vehicle was duly insured with the defendant no. 2 i.e. 'United India Insurance Co. Ltd.' for a period of one year w.e.f. 29.11.2019 to 28.11.2020. He also stated he did not receive any compensation amount from the Govt. of NCTD for the loss caused in the vehicle in the riots.
24. During his cross-examination on behalf of defendant no. 2 i.e. 'United India Insurance Co. Ltd.', the plaintiff/PW-1 stated that as on the date of the incident, the vehicle was already registered in his name by the Transport Authority and denied that he applied for registration of the vehicle 'Online' in the evening on the same day after the incident took place.
C.S. (Comm.) 10/2022 Rahul Kumar Vs. M/s T.R.Sawhney Motors & Anr. page no.12 of 17 25 From the perusal of record and in view of testimonies of the witnesses examined by the parties, it remains undisputed that at the time when the vehicle was delivered by the defendant no.1 to the plaintiff on 04.12.2019, the vehicle had a temporary registration no.DL-5TC-0047, which was valid for a period of one month i.e. till 03.01.2020. Further, within that period, the process of registration of the vehicle in the name of plaintiff was to be initiated.
26. It is also duly proved on record from the witnesses examined by the defendant no.2 i.e. 'United India Insurance Co. Ltd.' itself that the defendant no.1 was authorized to initiate the process for registration of the vehicle in the name of plaintiff with the Transport Authority and on 10.12.2019, the defendant no.1 already initiated the said process. Hence, it cannot be stated that there was any inordinate delay on the part of defendant no.1 in moving an application for registration of the vehicle with the Transport Authority in the name of the plaintiff. From the witnesses examined by the defendant no.2 itself, it is also proved on record that as on 15.12.2019, the vehicle already stood registered in the name of the plaintiff by the Transport Authority and hence, in the given facts and circumstance, there is no force in the contention of the defendant no.2 that on 15.12.2019 itself at about 07:18 p.m., the plaintiff had applied for registration of the vehicle in his name.
27. It is also not out of place to discuss here that the defendant C.S. (Comm.) 10/2022 Rahul Kumar Vs. M/s T.R.Sawhney Motors & Anr. page no.13 of 17 no.2 also could not show anything on record even remotely that the vehicle was registered in the name of plaintiff on 15.12.2019 at 07:18 p.m. as its witness has very categorically stated that the office hours are only upto 04:30 p.m and nothing is shown if the office hours were extended for registration of the vehicle after 04:30 p.m on that day.
28. It is also pertinent to discuss here that DW-1 clearly stated that at the time of delivery of the vehicle to the plaintiff, temporary registration number was also mentioned on the vehicle and defendant no.2 could not show anything on record even remotely that no such temporary number was issued to the vehicle of the plaintiff on 04.12.2019 or that it was not valid for a period of one month or that within the said period, the defendant no.1 did not apply for registration of the vehicle in the name of plaintiff with the Transport Authority or that as on 15.12.2019, the vehicle did not stand registered in the name of the plaintiff by the Transport Authority.
29. The defendant no.2 relied upon the ratio decidendi in the case titled as 'United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Sushil Kumar Godara', Civil Appeal No.5887/2021 decided on 30.09.2021, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the temporary registration of vehicle had expired on 28.07.2011 and the vehicle was taken to another city and laid down that there was nothing on record to suggest that the respondent had applied for registration or that he was awaiting for registration and C.S. (Comm.) 10/2022 Rahul Kumar Vs. M/s T.R.Sawhney Motors & Anr. page no.14 of 17 observed that as on date of theft, since the vehicle was driven/used without a valid registration, hence, there was violation of provisions of Section 39 and Section 192 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which amounted to fundamental breach of terms and conditions of the policy.
30. In the case in hand, the facts are different and as already discussed at length, it is proved on record that when the defendant no.1 delivered the vehicle to the plaintiff, it already bore a temporary registration number and within the stipulated period i.e. 10.12.2019, the defendant no.1 had already applied for registration of the vehicle in the name of plaintiff with the Transport Authority and as on 15.12.2019, the vehicle stood registered in the name of the plaintiff. Accordingly, in the given facts and circumstances of the case and on the basis of material as placed on record and in view of aforesaid discussion, the ratio of the aforesaid judgment would not be applicable in the case in hand.
31. In view of above, in considered opinion of the Court, the defendant no.2 has failed to show that the plaintiff used/permitted to use the vehicle on 14.12.2019 and 15.12.2019 without having the registration number in accordance with provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as on 14.12.2019, the vehicle had a temporary registration number and on 15.12.2019, the vehicle was registered in the name of plaintiff by the Transport Authority and hence, in the given facts and circumstances, the defendant no.2 C.S. (Comm.) 10/2022 Rahul Kumar Vs. M/s T.R.Sawhney Motors & Anr. page no.15 of 17 cannot be absolved of its liability to pay the amount towards loss caused to the vehicle of the plaintiff in the riots that occurred on 15.12.2019 in which, the vehicle of the plaintiff was damaged as the vehicle was duly insured with the defendant no.2 from 29.11.2019 to 28.11.2020.
Accordingly, since the defendant no.2 has failed to discharge the onus to prove Issue nos. 1 and 2, hence, the said issues are decided against it.
32. Issue no.3:-
"Whether defendant no. 1 has any liability towards the plaintiff? If so, to what extent?"OPP
33. In view of detailed discussion on Issue nos. 1 and 2, in considered opinion of the Court, the defendant no.1 has no liability to pay any amount to the plaintiff towards damage/loss caused in the vehicle on 15.12.2019. This issue is accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiff.
34. Issue no.4:-
"Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.5,87,000/- or any other amount from the defendants or any of them?" OPP In view of aforesaid detailed discussion, the plaintiff is entitled to a sum of Rs.5,87,000/- only from the defendant no.2 i.e. 'United India Insurance Co. Ltd'. This issue is accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiff.
C.S. (Comm.) 10/2022 Rahul Kumar Vs. M/s T.R.Sawhney Motors & Anr. page no.16 of 17
35. Issue no.5:-
"Whether the plaintiff is entitled to pendente lite and future interest on the amount, if any, found payable to the plaintiff? If so, at what rate and for what period?"
OPP In view of aforesaid, the plaintiff is also entitled to pendente lite and future interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realization.
36. Issue no.6:-
"Relief"
In view of aforesaid detailed discussion, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed in his favour and only against the defendant no.2 i.e. 'United India Insurance Co. Ltd.' for a sum of Rs.5,87,000/- alongwith pendente lite and future interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realization alongwith costs of the suit. The decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to record room after compliance of necessary legal formalities as per rules.
Dictated and Announced today i.e. on 25.01.2023.
in the open Court.
(BARKHA GUPTA) District Judge, Commercial Court, North-East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi C.S. (Comm.) 10/2022 Rahul Kumar Vs. M/s T.R.Sawhney Motors & Anr. page no.17 of 17