State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Surinder Kumar Sharma Son Of Jati Ram C/O ... vs 1. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance ... on 8 February, 2013
PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. 585 of 2012
Date of institution: 10.05.2012
Date of decision : 08.02.2013
Surinder Kumar Sharma son of Jati Ram C/o Surindra Commission agent
Ward No. 13, Grain Market, Ahmedgarh, District Sangrur.
.....Appellant/Complainant
Versus
1. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, 2nd Floor Satnam
Complex, BMC Chownk, Jalandhar city through its Branch Incharge.
2. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, G.E. Plaza
Airport Road, Yerwada Pune, Maharashtra 411006 through its
Managing Director.
.....Respondents/OPs
First Appeal against the order dated 03.04.2012
passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Jalandhar.
Before:-
Sardar Jagroop Singh Mahal,
Presiding Judicial Member
Sh. Piare Lal Garg, Member Sh. Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member Present:-
For the appellants : Sh. S.K. Sharma, Advocate
For respondents No. 1&2 : Sh. Vishal Aggarwal, Advocate
JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER
This is Complainant's appeal against the order dated 03.04.2012 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar (in short the District Forum) vide which the complaint was dismissed on the ground that the insured vehicle was not got registered by him when it met with an accident.
2. The case of the complainant is that he got his car insured with the OP for the period from 04.01.2011 to 03.01.2012, that on 08.02.2011 it met with an accident in which it was damaged and a report was lodged with the police. The OP/respondent was informed and a claim was submitted for First Appeal No. 585 of 2012 2 payment of Rs. 1,24,748/- which was spent by the complainant on its repair. When the O.Ps did not make the payment, a legal notice was issued and thereafter the present complaint was filed to direct the OP/respondent to pay the amount of Rs. 1,24,748/- alongwith Rs. 1.50 lac for mental harassment and inconvenience and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation cost.
3. The O.Ps/respondent admitted that the vehicle was insured with them and that a report was received that the vehicle met with an accident on 07.02.2011. Their contention is that the driver was not having a valid driving licence and the vehicle was not registered as required under section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). According to them the surveyor was appointed who assessed the loss at Rs. 74,928/- but no compensation was paid due to the violation of the terms of the policy and the provisions of the Act.
4. Both the parties were given opportunity to adduce evidence in support of their contentions.
5. After hearing arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, the learned District Forum vide impugned order dated 03.04.2012 dismissed the complaint in terms stated above. The complainant has challenged the same through the present appeal.
6. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
8. The contention of the learned counsel for the complainant/appellant is that the non registration of the vehicle does not entitle him to compensation as there is no such terms and condition mentioned in the insurance policy Ex. C-6. As against it the learned counsel for the respondent argued that it was necessary for the complainant to get the vehicle registered under section 39 of the Act and the violation thereof First Appeal No. 585 of 2012 3 disentitles him to the compensation. In support of his contention he referred to the order dated 16.02.2012 passed by the Hon'ble National commission in revision petition No. 4043 of 2008 titled Kaushalendra Kumar Mishra Vs. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. In that case the theft of the vehicle took place which was not got registered with the registering authority, it was held that non registration was violation of section 39 of the Act and therefore the owner was not entitled to any compensation. As against it the learned counsel for the complainant/appellant has cited the order dated 27.04.2012 which also has been rendered by the Hon'ble National Commission in revision petition No. 171 of 2012 titled "IFFCO TOKIO General Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs. Pratima Jha". In that case by referring to the earlier decisions rendered in HDFC Chubb General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. ILA Gupta and Ors. 1 (2007) CPJ 274 and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swami Devi Dayal Hi Tech Education Academy (R.P. NO. 497 of 2012) the Hon'ble National Commission has held that the insurance company was not entitled to repudiate the claim merely on the ground that the vehicle had not been registered. This authority was followed by this commission in F.A. NO. 446 of 2011 titled M/s Bharti Axa General Insurance Company Ltd Vs. Mrs. Venus decided on 16.08.2011. Revision Petition No. 3095 of 2011 filed against the said decision has been dismissed by the Hon'ble National Commission vide its orders dated 30.09.2011. We are of the opinion that when there are two views on the same point the one which goes in favour of the consumer should be accepted. In view of this proposition the complainant was entitled to compensation and his claim could not be repudiated by the OP/respondent because non registration was not the cause of accident or damage to the vehicle.
First Appeal No. 585 of 2012 4
9. The next question is to what amount of compensation the complainant is entitled. He has submitted the bills showing that he spent Rs. 1,24,748/- on the repair of the vehicle. The OP/respondents has appointed the surveyor who submitted his report Ex. O-6 and came to the conclusion that the complainant was entitled to Rs. 74,928.95 paisa and would retain the salvage with him. Since the insurance company was entitled to pay the amount after deducting the necessary depreciation and other deductions as per the policy and also that the report of the surveyor has not been challenged by the complainant, we are of the opinion that the amount of Rs. 1,24,748/- cannot be claimed by the complainant. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 2703 of 2010 "Amalendu Sahoo Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd." decided on 25.03.2010 considered this question in Paras No. 12 to 15 of its judgment. It was held that in case of any other breach of warranty/condition of policy including as to use, the insurance company would be liable to pay up to 75% of the admissible claim which in the present case comes out to Rs. 56,196/- for the which the complainant is entitled.
10. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the Learned District Forum wrongly dismissed the complaint which was liable to succeed. We accordingly accept the appeal with cost, set aside the impugned order passed by the Learned District Forum and allow the complaint. The OP/respondent is directed to pay to the complainant the amount of Rs. 56,196/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. w.e.f. 07.04.2011 (One month after the report Ex. O-6) till the amount is actually paid. If the amount is not paid within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order, the OP/respondent shall be liable to pay the same alongwith penal First Appeal No. 585 of 2012 5 interest @ 12 % p.a. w.e.f. 07.04.2011 till the amount is actually paid. The complainant would be also entitled to Rs. 10,000/- as cost of litigation.
Copies of the orders be supplied to the parties free of costs.
(JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (PIARE LAL GARG) MEMBER (VINOD KUMAR GUPTA) MEMBER February 8, 2013.
RK