State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co.Ltd. vs Dinesh Chauhan & Anr. on 30 May, 2016
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G.)
Appeal No.FA/2015/689
Instituted on : 15.01.2016
M/s. Shivnath Automobile Private Limited,
G.E. Road,
Bhilai, Tehsil and District Durg (C.G.) ... Appellant
Vs.
1. Dinesh Chauhan, S/o Shri Punwasi Chauhan,
R/o : Nehru Road, Supela,
Bhilai, Tehsil and District Durg (C.G.)
2. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited,
Through : Managing Director/Chairman,
205, Second Floor, M.M. Silver Plaza,
Behind Udyog Bhawan, Near Mining Office,
Ring Road No.1,
Raipur (C.G.) 492006 .... Respondents
Appeal No.FA/2015/690
Instituted on : 15.01.2016
Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited,
Through : Business Head (Managing Director/Chairman)
Address - 205, Second Floor, M.M. Silver Plaza,
Behind Udyog Bhawan, Near Mining Office,
Ring Road No.1,
Post, Tehsil & District Raipur (C.G.) ... Appellant
Vs.
1. Dinesh Chauhan, S/o Shri Punwasi Chauhan,
R/o : Nehru Road, Supela,
Bhilai, Tehsil and District Durg (C.G.)
2. M/s. Shivnath Automobile Private Limited,
Through : Authorized officer/Manager/Director,
Address : G.E. Road,
Bhilai, Tehsil and District Durg (C.G.) .... Respondents
// 2 //
PRESENT: -
HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE MISS HEENA THAKKAR, MEMBER
HON'BLE SHRI D.K. PODDAR, MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI NARENDRA GUPTA, MEMBER COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES IN BOTH THE APPEALS:-
Shri Shubham Jain, for the complainant - Dinesh Chauhan, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.).
Shri Prabhank Thakur, for the O.P.No.1 -M/s. Shivnath Automobile Private Limited, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.). Shri P.K. Paul, for the O.P.No.2 - Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited, Raipur (C.G.).
O RDER Dated : 30/05/2016 PER: - HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT This order will govern disposal of Appeal No.FA/2015/689 as well as Appeal No. FA/2015/690, which have been preferred respectively by the O.P.No.1 M/s. Shivnath Automobile Private Limited and O.P.No.2 Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited, of the Complaint Case No.CC/2015/107, against the order dated 23.11.2015, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg (C.G.) (henceforth "District Forum"). By the impugned order, the learned District Forum, has allowed the complaint of the complainant and directed the OPs to jointly and severally pay compensation within a period of one month from the date of order, which are mentioned as below :-
// 3 //
(a) The O.P.No.1 & O.P.No.2 will jointly and severally pay Rs.10,58,332/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Fifty Eight Thousand Three Hundred and Thirty Two) to the complainant along with interest @ 18% p.a. on the above amount from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 24.02.2015 till date of payment.
(b) The O.P.No.1 & O.P.No.2 will jointly and severally pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs) towards compensation for mental agony to the complainant.
(c) The O.P.No.1 and O.P.No.2 will jointly and severally pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) towards cost of litigation to the complainant.
2. The O.P.No.1 M/s Shivnath Automobile Private Limited, has filed Appeal No.FA/2015/689 and O.P. No.2 Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited has filed Appeal No. FA/2015/690 for setting aside the impugned order of the District Forum. The original of this order be retained in the file of Appeal No.FA/2015/689 and it's copy be placed in the file of Appeal No.FA/2015/690.
3. Briefly stated the facts of the complaint of the complainant are that the complainant has an established business of wooden works in Dakshin Gangotri, Bhilai. In the month of December, 2013, the complainant went to the premises of the O.P.No.1 for buying Mahindra Scorpio Vlx (Four Wheeler) for his family and he inquired // 4 // regarding its price from the O.P.No.1. On 21.12.2013, after getting assurance from O.P.No.1 regarding every formality like insurance, finance etc., the complainant purchased Mahindra Scorpio Vlx from the O.P.No.1 and a sum of Rs.2,20,000/- was paid by him to the O.P.No.1 as down payment in respect of the vehicle. The O.P.No.1 gave him payment details receipt copy, vehicle receipt, delivery challan and receipt of down payment to the complainant. Before taking possession of the vehicle, the complainant asked the O.P.No.1 about its RTO formalities then the O.P.No.1 gave assurance that after a week Certificate of Registration will be given to the complainant. After 10 days of purchase of the vehicle, the complainant went to the showroom of the O.P.No.1 to know about status of Certificate of Registration, then the O.P.No.1 informed the complainant that the RTO fee has been deposited in RTO office and very soon Certificate of Registration will be handed over to the complainant along with Private Car Certificate of Insurance Cum Schedule. On 09.01.2014 and 17.01.2014, the complainant again visited the showroom of the O.P.No.1 and inquired regarding the Certificate of Registration of the vehicle, but the O.P.No.1 carelessly replied that all the RTO formalities have been completed and very soon documents will be provided to the complainant. On 08.02.2014 at about 2.30 A.M. (midnight) some unidentified miscreants burnt the vehicle of the complainant. The matter was reported to the Police Station Supela, Bhilai (C.G.) where offence under Section 435 IPC // 5 // was registered and information regarding the incident was also given to the OPs on very next morning. The O.P.No.1 collected amount for Certificate of Registration, but did not provide relevant papers to the complainant for a long period, therefore, the complainant himself obtained Certificate of Registration of the vehicle on 18.02.2014. The O.P.No.2 appointed Surveyor, who inspected the vehicle and assessed the loss and gave his report. The O.P.No.1 had taken a sum of Rs.81,232/- towards R.T.O. charge from the complainant instead of Rs.76,490/-, it means near about Rs.5,000/- was taken by the O.P.No.1 from the complainant in excess. The O.P.No.2 repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that the vehicle was not registered with concerned RTO at the time of incident. The OPs have committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, therefore, the complainant filed consumer complaint before the District Forum and prayed for granting reliefs, as mentioned in the prayer clause of the complaint.
4. The O.P.No.1 filed its written statement and averred that the O.P.No.1 never assured the complainant that the O.P.No.1 will obtain Certificate of Registration of the vehicle from the R.T.O. The price of the vehicle was Rs.11,14,034/-. The O.P.No.1 never received a sum of Rs.81,232/- for RTO charge from the complainant. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.2,20,000/- as down payment and a sum of // 6 // Rs.9,59,469/- was received by the O.P.No.1 through the financer Mahindra Finance, thus the O.P.No.1 received a sum of Rs.11,79,469/- in respect of the said vehicle. A sum of Rs.17,797/- was to be recovered from the complainant and for want of payment of R.T.O. charge the vehicle could not be got registered with the R.T.O. The same was paid by the complainant on 18.02.2014 through receipt No.9059 The O.P.No.1 did not commit any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice. The complainant is not entitled to get any compensation from the O.P.No.1, hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
5. The O.P.No.2 filed its written statement and averred that the insurance policy,m was issued in favour of the complainant for unregistered vehicle on the basis of engine number and chassis number of the vehicle. The vehicle in question was being used by the complainant without Certificate of Registration, which is violation of provisions of Section 39 and 43 of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, therefore, the O.P.No.2 has repudiated the claim of the complainant. On the basis of Survey Report, the Insurance Company came to the conclusion that on 08.02.2014 the vehicle in question was not registered with the R.T.O. and the complainant was using the vehicle without obtaining Certificate of Registration, which is violation of provisions of Section 39 and 43 of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, therefore, the Insurance Company has rightly repudiated the claim of the // 7 // complainant and by doing so, it has not committed any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.
6. The complainant has filed documents. Annexure 1 is Payment details copy, Annexure 2 is Insurance Cover Note dated 21.12.2013 issued by Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd., Annexure 3 is Vehicle Receipt dated 21.12.2013, Annexure 4 is Delivery Challan dated 21.12.2013, Annexure 5 is D.P. Receipt dated 21.12.2013, Annexure 6 is Private Car Certificate of Insurance Cum Schedule dated 30.01.2013 issued by Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited, Annexure 7 is First Information Report under Section 154 Cr.P.C. dated 08.02.2014, Annexure 8 is registration details dated 18.02.2014, Annexure 9 is Request letter and Motor Claim Form dated 22.04.2014, Annexure 10 is Letter dated 04.11.2014 issued by Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. to the complainant, Annexure 10 is MMFSL Reports Statement of Account Date 19.01.2015.
7. The O.P.No.1 has filed documents. Annexure NA is receipt dated 21.12.2013 issued by Shivnath Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. in favour of the complainant, Annexure NA-2 is receipt dated 18.02.2014 issued by Shivnath Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. in favour of the complainant, Annexure NA-3 is Ledger Account of the complainant from 01.04.2013 to 31.03.2014.
// 8 //
8. The O.P.No.2 has filed documents. Annexure D-1 is Private Car Certificate of Insurance Cum Schedule issued by Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited, Annexure D-2 is Motor (Final) Survey Report dated 31.10.2014 issued by Shri Shyam Chhabra, Surveyors & Loss Assessors Plant & Machinery Valuer, Annexure D-3 is Certificate of Registration of vehicle bearing registration No.C.G.07-AQ-3658, Annexure D-4 is Registration Certificate Details, Annexure D-5 is letter dated 04.11.2014 sent by the Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited to the complainant.
9. Shri Prabhank Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the O.P.No.1 M/s Shivnath Automobile Private Limited (appellant of Appeal No.FA/2015/689) has argued that the O.P.No.1 had never assured the complainant that the O.P. No.1 will obtain Certificate of Registration in respect of his vehicle. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.2,20,000/- as down payment. Annexure 1 is not a receipt, but it is an offer letter. According to offer letter the complainant will be responsible to pay a sum of Rs.81,232/- for formality of registration process, but the complainant did not deposit the full amount. The complainant deposited lesser amount of Rs.17,797/-, which was deposited by the complainant with the O.P.No.1 on 18.02.2014 i.e. after accident, , therefore, the registration could not be done. It is duty of the complainant to get the vehicle registered, but the complainant himself // 9 // did not bother to get the vehicle registered. Even the complainant deposited the said amount after date of incident, therefore, the complainant himself is responsible for obtaining the Certificate of Registration and he was using the vehicle without obtaining Certificate of Registration. The O.P.No.1 did not commit any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice. The impugned order passed by the District Forum, is erroneous, and is liable to be set aside.
10. Shri P.K. Paul, learned counsel appearing for the O.P.No.2 - Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited (appellant of Appeal No.FA/2015/690) has argued that the insurance policy was issued on the basis of engine number and chassis number of the vehicle. In Rule 47 of Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 it is mentioned that at the time of filing application for registration of Motor Vehicle, it is essential for the owner / purchaser to submit valid insurance certificate along with sale certificate to the Registering Authority. The complainant purchased new vehicle, therefore, insurance policy was issued by the O.P.No.2 on the basis of engine number and chassis number of the vehicle, for the purpose of registration of the vehicle. The new vehicle is only registered when insurance policy is submitted by the owner/purchaser. Without insurance certificate, new vehicle cannot be registered by the Registering Authority.
// 10 //
11. The duty cast upon the complainant / owner to submit application for registration before the Registering Authority within seven days from the date of taking delivery of the vehicle along with Sale Certificate and valid insurance certificate, but in the instant case, the complainant did not obtain Certificate of Registration. Shri P.K. Paul, has further argued that that the insurance policy was issued in favour of the complainant for unregistered vehicle on the basis of engine number and chassis number of the vehicle. The vehicle in question was being used by the complainant without Certificate of Registration, which is violation of provisions of Section 39 and 43 of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, therefore, the O.P.No.2 has repudiated the claim of the complainant. On the basis of Survey Report, the Insurance Company came to the conclusion that on 08.02.2014 the vehicle in question was not registered with the R.T.O. and the complainant was using the vehicle without obtaining Certificate of Registration, which is violation of provisions of Section 39 and 43 of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, therefore, the Insurance Company has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant and by doing so, it has not committed any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice. The impugned order passed by the District Forum, is erroneous, and is liable to be set aside. He placed reliance on The New India Assurance Company Limited, Through Its Manager, Ambikapur, District Ambikapur (C.G.) Vs. Shri Preetam Soni and another, Appeal // 11 // No.FA/2015/441 decided by this Commission on 28.12.2015 and Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Shri Nitin Kumar Mittal - Appeal No.FA/2015/232 decided by this Commission on 30.03.2016.
12. Shri Shubham Jain, learned counsel appearing for the complainant - Dinesh Chauhan (respondent No.1 in both the Appeal No.FA/2015/689 and FA/2015/690) has argued that the impugned order passed by the District Forum, is just, proper reasonable. Looking to document Annexure 1, it appears that the complainant had deposited a sum of 81,232/- with the O.P.No.1 for obtaining Certificate of Registration. Even after receiving the said amount from the complainant, the O.P.No.1 did not obtain Certificate of Registration. The complainant continuously contacted with the O.P.No.1 in this regard but the O.P.No.1 gave false assurance and on 08.02.2014 some unknown miscreants burnt the vehicle in question due to which the complainant suffered loss. The complainant submitted claim before the O.P.No.2 (Insurance Company), but the O.P.No.2 (Insurance Company) erroneously repudiated the claim of the complainant even after receiving Survey Report from the Surveyor & Loss Assessor. The Surveyor and Loss Assessor assessed loss on total loss basis. The vehicle was not registered with the R.T.O. at the time of incident due to negligence of the O.P.No.1, therefore, the complainant is not responsible for non-registration of the vehicle. It is duty of the O.P. // 12 // No.1 to get the vehicle registered with R.T.O., therefore, the complainant is entitled to get compensation from the OPs and the learned District Forum, has rightly awarded compensation to the complainant. Both the appeals filed by the O.P.No.1 and O.P.No.2 are liable to be dismissed.
13. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record of the District Forum.
14. The O.P.No.2 has filed Private Car Certificate of Insurance Cum Schedule (Ex. D-1). In Ex.D-1, the Engine Number and Chassis Number of the vehicle are mentioned and the total value of the vehicle is mentioned Rs.10,58,332/-. It appears that the insurance policy was issued by the O.P.No.2 (Insurance Company) on the basis of Engine Number and Chassis Number of the vehicle.
15. The complainant has filed Offer Letter / Payment Details dated 21.12.2013, which was sent by the O.P.No.1 to the complainant, marked as Annexure 1. According to the Annexure 1, it is offered by the O.P. No.1 that the price of the vehicle would be Rs.11,14,034/-, handling charge Rs.2,000/-, RTO charge Rs.81,232/- and Insurance Charge Rs.36,211/- totaling Rs.12,33,477/- and the processing fee was Rs.2,33,477/-. The discount was given to the tune of Rs.36,211/-. From // 13 // bare perusal of the Annexure 1, it appears that the mode of payment was given to the complainant.
16. The O.P.No.1 has filed Ledger Account of the complainant Dinesh Chauhan from 01.04.2013 to 31.03.2014 Annexure NA-3 (D/3). According to the Ledger Account, the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.2,20,000/- with the O.P.No.1 on 21.12.2013 towards down payment and also deposited Rs.1,19,443/-. In Annexure NA-3 (D-3) it is mentioned that Rs.81,232/- was also deposited with the O.P.No.1 towards RTO charge and total amount of Rs.1,19,443/- was paid. It appears that the O.P.No.1 had received amount of Rs..81,232/- towards RTO charge and Rs.36,211/- towards insurance charge from the complainant. The complainant also deposited a sum of Rs.17,797/- with O.P.No.1 on 18.02.2014.
17. The learned counsel for the O.P.No.1 has argued that the complainant did not deposit the full amount for Registration, therefore, the vehicle could not be got registered. The accident took place on 08.02.2014 and the balance amount of Rs.17,797/- was paid by the complainant to the O.P.No.1 on 18.02.2014. It appears that after the incident, the balance amount was deposited by the complainant with the O.P.No.1, therefore, if the vehicle was not registered at the time of the accident, then the complainant himself is responsible for the same.
// 14 // Until full amount is paid by the complainant, the O.P.No.1 is not bound to obtain Certificate of Registration 18 If the complainant paid lesser amount than the actual amount of registration charges, then it is the duty cast upon the O.P.No.1 to intimate the complainant that he had deposited lesser amount and some more amount, is still required to be paid by him, but no notice in this regard was sent by the O.P.No.1 to the complainant. The O.P.No.1 had received huge amount of Rs.81,232/- from the complainant towards RTO charge and even after receiving the above amount, the O.P.No.1 did not bother for getting Certificate of Registration and due to negligence of the O.P.No.1 the vehicle in question could not be registered. The complainant also deposited a sum of Rs.17,797/- with the O.P.No.1 on 18.02.2014. The accident took place on 08.02.2014 and registration was effected on 18.02.2014. It appears that the O.P.No.1 kept the amount with him and without giving intimation to the complainant, he kept the amount with him and did not get the vehicle registered. If the complainant deposited the lesser amount to the tune of Rs.17,797/- with the O.P.No.1, then the it is duty of the O.P.No.1 to send intimation in this regard to the complainant, but no such intimation was given by the O.P.No.1 to the complainant. It appears that due to negligent act of the O.P. No.1, the vehicle could not be got // 15 // registered, therefore, the O.P.No.1. liable to pay compensation to the complainant.
19. Now we shall examine whether the O.P.No.2 Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited is also liable for paying compensation to the complainant ?
20. Rule 47 of The Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 runs thus :-
"47. Application for registration of motor vehicles. - (1) An application for registration of a motor vehicle shall be made in Form 20 to the registering authority within a period of seven days from the date of taking delivery of such vehicle, excluding the period of journey and shall be accompanied by :-
(a) sale certificate in Form 21;
(b) valid insurance certificate;
(c) copy of the proceedings of the State Transport Authority or Transport Commissioner or such other authorities as may be prescribed by the State Government for the purpose of approval of the design in the case of a trailer or a semi- trailer;
(d) original sale certificate from the concerned authorities in Form 21 in the case of ex-army vehicles;
(e) proof of address by way of any one of the documents referred to in Rule 4;
(f) temporary registration, if any;
(g) road-worthiness certificate in Form 22 from the manufacturers, [Form 22A from the body builders]';
(h) custom's clearance certificate in case of imported vehicles along with the licence and bond, if any :
Provided that in the case of imported vehicles other than those imported under the Baggage Rules, 1998, the procedure followed by the registering authority shall be same as those procedure followed for registering of vehicles manufacturer in India, and
(i) appropriate fee as specified in Rule 81.
// 16 //
(j) Proof of citizenship;
(k) Proof of legal presence in India in addition to proof of residence in case of foreigners.
(2) In respect of vehicles temporarily registered, application under sub-rule (1) shall be made before the temporary registration expires."
21. From bare perusal of Rule 47 of The Central Motor Vehicles Rules,1989, it appears that the before getting the vehicle registered, the insurance is essential. It means that the insurance was done on the basis of Engine number and Chassis number and Certificate of Insurance only after submitting Insurance Policy (Certificate) along with application, the registration of the vehicle was effected by the Registering Authority.
22. Provisions of Section 39 of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 runs thus :-
"39. Necessity for registration. - No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner or 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."
// 17 //
23. Provisions of Section 43 (1) & (2) of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 run thus :-
"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."
24. In Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Vidya Bai, I (2015) CPJ 384 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission has observed thus :-
"9. "In the case in hand the complainant had not placed any evidence on record that after getting the vehicle insured she ever applied for extension of temporary registration or applied for permanent registration under Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Merely by mentioning that after purchase of the vehicle, the complainant's husband, on account of serious illness was admitted in various hospitals and she remained busy to help her husband, it cannot be a sufficient ground for not getting vehicle registered for 110 days and in such circumstances I do not find any deficiency on the part of // 18 // the petitioner in repudiating claim. Learned District Forum committed error in allowing complaint and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal and revision petition is to be allowed."
25. In Narinder Singh vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. and Others, 2014 ACJ 2421, Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed thus :-
"14. Indisputably, a temporary registration was granted in respect of 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 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 the policy contract."
15. In the aforesaid premises, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the State Commission and the National Commission."
26. In Bhagwat vs. The United India Insurance Company Limited, IV (2014) CPJ 698 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission has observed that petitioner never applied before Regional Transport Officer for getting permanent registration of the vehicle and for failure to meet // 19 // statutory requirement regarding registration of the vehicle, the complainant was not entitled to get claim even on non-standard basis.
27. In Din Dayal vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr.I (2013) CPJ 10 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission has observed thus :-
"5. These arguments do not sound very convinced. Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 lays down that the registration of the vehicle is mandatory requirement of law to drive the vehicle on any place or any other place. In support of his case, the State Commission has placed reliance upon the order of this Commission in the case of Kaushalendra Kumar Mishra v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, I (2012) CPJ 559. Consequently, there was violation of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
28. In Niranjan Kumar Yadav vs. National Insurance Co. Limited, II (2011) CPJ 64 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission has observed thus :-
"4................ On the contention of the present revision petitioner that the registration was already applied for and was pending with the registering authority, the State Commission has made the following categorical observations :
"If permanent registration cannot be done for the delay of the office of the registering authority then it must have temporary registration. Legality is the essence of all agreement. If it is violative of law, any contract or agreement is bound to fail, may there be otherwise expressed provision in the terms and condition of the agreement or not. The appellant failed to show any temporary registration number He also failed to show any // 20 // receipt of the application for registration to prove that he had applied for registration before the mishap."
5. In view of this observation of the State Commission, the claim of the Revision Petitioner/Complainant that the registration was pending before the Registering Authority, looses all creditability."
29. The complainant has admitted that the accident took place on 08.02.2014 and he obtained Certificate of Registration of the vehicle on 18.02.2014. The complainant has filed Registration Details (Annexure
8) in which Make : SCOR VLX AT BS3 WD-HE , Vehicle Type : L.M.V (Car), Date of Manufacture 23.12.2013 and Purchase Date are mentioned 18.02.2014. It appears that the vehicle was got registered on 18.02.2014. It appears that the vehicle in question was not registered with the R.T.O. at the time of accident and Certificate of Registration was not obtained by the complainant. It appears that the complainant had moved application before the R.T.O. on 18.02.2014. The vehicle in question was being used by the complainant in violation of provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which is fundamental breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy and mandatory provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
30. Therefore, the O.P.No.2 Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited, is not liable to pay compensation to the complainant and it // 21 // deserves to be exonerated from the liability of making payment of compensation to the complainant.
31. Now we shall examined whether learned District Forum has rightly awarded the Insured Declared Value of the vehicle Rs.10,58,332/- and Rs.3,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony to the complainant ?
32. The complainant prayed for awarding a sum of Rs.10,58,332/- which is Insured Declared Value and also Rs.3,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and physical strain suffered by the complainant. Learned District Forum, has allowed the above prayers, but no proper and plausible reason has been assigned by the District Forum in the impugned order for awarding the above amounts.
33. The O.P.No.2 has filed Motor (Final) Survey Report dated 31.10.2014 of Shri Shyam Chhabra, Surveyors & Loss Assessors in which he assessed loss to the tune of Rs.6,56,332/- on total loss basis. In the Survey Report, the reason for above assessment has been given by the Surveyor. The Report of the Surveyor, is a reliable evidence, therefore, the Surveyor's Report is genuine and dependable. The Surveyor's report has significant evidentiary value, unless is proved otherwise. On the basis of Surveyor's Report, it is evident that the appellant (complainant) suffered loss to the tune of 6,56,332/-.
// 22 //
34. In Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pavan Enterprises & Anr. I (2016) CPJ 503 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission has observed thus :-
"12. I see no reason to discard the report of the Surveyor. He appears to be a guideless witness. No motive was ever attributed to him. There must be some reasonable ground or doubt to reject his report. The report of the Surveyor carries infinite significance as was held in Roshan Lal Oil Mills Ltd. & Ors., 2014 (SLT Soft) 1 = 2014 (CPJ Soft) 1 = (2000) 10 Supreme Court Cases 19 and in D.N. Badoni v.
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., I (2012) C.P.J. 272 (NC)."
35. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd., vs. Pave Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., 2015 (3) CPR 577 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission has observed that "Loss of assessment by approved Surveyor can be discarded only on cogent reasons".
36. In Garg Acrylics Ltd., Through Sh. Anish Bansal G.M. (G.M.) Authorised Representative vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2015 (1) CPR 273 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission has observed thus :-
"11.................. This is settled Law that the report of the surveyor is to be given much more weightage than any other piece of evidence. See the Law laid down in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Others Versus Roshan Lal Oil Mills Ltd. & Ors. (2000) 10 Supreme Court Cases 19 & in D.N. Badoni Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. I (2012) C.P.J. 272 (NC)".
// 23 //
37. In the instant case, the Surveyor's Report is reliable and no cogent evidence was produced by the complainant for discarding the Surveyor's Report, therefore, the Surveyor's Report is reliable and dependable. The complainant is only entitled for getting compensation of Rs.6,56,332/- as assessed by the Surveyor, but learned District Forum instead of awarding amount as assessed by the Surveyor, has awarded Rs.10,58,332/- to the complainant. The order of the District Forum is erroneous and is liable to be set aside. The complainant is only entitled for getting a sum of Rs.6,56,332/- from the O.P.No.1 M/s. Shivnath Automobile Private Limited.
38. Learned District Forum has awarded a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony to the complainant, which is very excessive, but it is evident that the O.P.No.1 kept the amount with him for long time and after occurrence of the accident the vehicle was got registered due to which the complainant definitely suffered mental agony. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is just and proper to award a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) to the complainant towards compensation for mental agony and against the O.P.No.1 instead of Rs.3,00,000/-.
39. Learned District Forum has awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) towards cost of litigation to the complainant. It is also on higher side. It is just and proper to award a sum of Rs.5,000/-
// 24 // (Rupees Five Thousand) towards cost of litigation to the complainant instead of Rs.10,000/-.
40. The District Forum has awarded interest @ 18% p.a., which is also on higher side. The complainant is only entitled for interest @ 9% per annum on Rs.6,56,332/-.
41. Therefore, the appeal No.FA/2015/690 filed by the O.P.No.2 Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited, is allowed and the impugned order dated 23.11.2015, passed by the District Forum, against the O.P.No.2, is set aside and the O.P.No.2 is exonerated from liability.
42. So far as Appeal No.FA/2015/689 filed by the O.P.No.1 M/s. Shivnath Automobile Private Limited, is partly allowed and it is directed that the O.P.No.1 M/s Shivnath Automobile Private Limited will pay a sum of Rs.6,56,332/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Fifty Six Thousand Three Hundred & Thirty Two) instead of Rs.10,58,332/- to the complainant. The O.P.No.1 will also pay interest on Rs.6,56,332/- @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 24.02.2015 till date of payment. It is further directed that the O.P.No.1 will pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) instead of Rs.3,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) towards cost of litigation instead of Rs.10,000/- to the // 25 // complainant. The O.P.No.1 will also pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand) to the complainant as cost of these appeals.
(Justice R.S. Sharma) (Ms. Heena Thakkar) (D.K. Poddar) (Narendra Gupta)
President Member Member Member
30/05/2016 30/05/2016 30/05/2016 30/05/2016