State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Inderjit Singh on 6 June, 2017
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB
First Appeal No.464 of 2016
Date of Institution: 14.06.2016
Date of Reserve : 19.05.2016
Date of Decision : 06.06.2017
United India Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Office, Batala Road,
Amritsar through its Branch Manager.
Now Represented through the duly authorized signatory of Regional
Office at 136, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana.
......Appellant/Opposite party
Versus
Inderjit Singh son of S.Ajmer Singh, Resident of H.No.93, Gali No.6,
Shaheed Udham Singh Nagar, Amritsar, Punjab.
.....Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal against the order dated
05.05.2016 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, President
Mr. Harcharan Singh Guram, Member
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh.Nitin Gupta, Advocate For the respondents : Sh.Sukhandeep Singh, Advocate HARCHARAN SINGH GURAM, MEMBER The appellant/opposite party (hereinafter referred to as 'opposite party') has filed the present appeal against the order dated 05.05.2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar (hereinafter referred to as 'District Forum') in Consumer Complaint No.512 dated 18.08.2015 vide which the complaint was allowed and the opposite party was directed to pay `5,45,580/- as First Appeal No.464 of 2016 2 compensation as per the report of the surveyor on account of theft of the car, subject to furnishing the letter of subrogation, power of attorney for transfer of the vehicle in question in favour of the opposite party by the complainant. It was directed that the directions issued be complied within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of the order, failing which the amount awarded would carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of order till its payment.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant Inderjit Singh S/o S.Ajmer Singh purchased one Tata Indigo ECS LX CR4 car from Automobile Kapoor's India Pvt. Ltd. bearing Registration No.PB02-BW-8301 having Temporary Registration No. PB T 0382 after availing the loan from HDFC Bank Ltd. The said vehicle was insured for a sum of `5,64,587/- vide Cover Note No.2003023112004288 dated 11.07.2012. The sum of `15,378/- was charged as insurance premium for insuring the said vehicle. It was averred that the vehicle was taken by him from dealer on later date. It was averred that his car was stolen on 11.08.2012 and the matter was reported to Police Station B-Division, Amritsar, which lodged report/ FIR under Section 379 IPC. The incident of theft was reported to the opposite party and Sh. Surinder Kumar Seth was appointed as investigator. The said investigator investigated the matter and gave his report to the opposite party vide his report dated 12.11.2012. As per the instructions of the opposite party, the said investigator obtained the consent letter from him for settlement of the claim for a sum of `5,45,580/-. However, opposite party vide its letter dated 19.08.2013 repudiated his claim on the ground that on the date of theft his vehicle was not having permanent registration number First Appeal No.464 of 2016 3 despite the fact that the investigator was satisfied with the replies given by the dealer Automobile Kapoor's India Pvt. Ltd. that the registration of the vehicle was already under process. It was averred that the act of the opposite party for repudiating his claim was an act of gross deficiency in service which caused financial loss and also caused him mental agony and harassment. On receiving the repudiation letter from the opposite party he filed his consumer complaint in District Forum and sought the directions to be issued against the opposite party; to pay `5,64,587/- as per insurance policy with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of loss, till its payment; to pay compensation to the tune of `50,000/- for harassment and for causing mental agony; to pay `21,000/- as costs of litigation and any other relief which the District Forum may deem appropriate and fit.
3. Upon notice, opposite party filed its reply and took preliminary objections that the complainant did not come to the court with clean hands and tried to conceal the material facts from the Forum. It was pleaded that he was estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present complaint. It was averred that the complainant concealed the material facts, meaning thereby he had violated the terms and conditions of the policy covered under Insurance Policy. It was averred that a letter dated 19.08.2013 was sent to the complainant wherein he was informed that without Registration Certificate the investigation process of settlement of his claim cannot be settled. On merits, it admitted the contents of para no.1 and 2 and admitted that vide its letter dated 19.08.2013 the claim of the complainant was repudiated on the ground that he did not have the valid Registration First Appeal No.464 of 2016 4 Certificate on the date when the theft had taken place. On receipt of the intimation given by the complainant an investigator was appointed to investigate the matter and on the basis of investigation report the claim of the complainant was repudiated as the vehicle in question was not having a valid registered number on the date of theft as per the requirement of the policy terms and conditions. It was duly informed to the complainant it denied all the averments as alleged in the complaint.
4. Both the sides produced evidence in support of their respective averments before the District Forum, which after going through the same and hearing learned counsel on their behalf allowed the complaint, vide impugned order. Hence this appeal.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the grounds of appeal on behalf of the appellant/opposite party and have carefully gone through the records of the case, which was called at the stage of admission.
6. Counsel for the opposite party argued that the Tata Indigo was insured by it from 11.07.2012 to 10.07.2013. The said vehicle was stolen on 11.08.2012. He argued that the said stolen vehicle was not having Registration Certificate on 11.08.2012. He argued that as per Section 39 of the Motors Vehicle Act, 1988, if there is no Registration Certificate on the date of any occurrence the claim will be repudiated. He argued that as per the terms and conditions of insurance company the valid Registration Certificate is required in order to ply the vehicle on the road. He argued that the District Forum wrongly allowed the complaint and directed them to pay an amount of `5,45,580/- without going through the law of land. First Appeal No.464 of 2016 5
7. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent /complainant argued that the order passed by the District Forum is a well reasoned order and needs to be affirmed. He argued that as per Section 42 of the Punjab Motors Vehicle Act, a vehicle with a temporary registration certificate can also ply on the road for a period of one year after paying the requisite penalty. He further argued that it was the prima facie duty of the automobile dealer to apply for the Registration Certificate and for that he had paid an amount of `22,032/- to the dealer. He argued that originally the vehicle was insured by the insurance company having its office in the premises of Automobile Kapoor's India Pvt. Ltd. Showroom and no registration number was mentioned at the time of issuance of the insurance cover note except it stated the Engine number and Chassis number. He further argued that Form No.21 i.e. Sale Certificate was given to them by the Automobile Kapoor's India Pvt. Ltd. on 07.08.2012. As per the sale certificate the vehicle can be registered upto 06.09.2012. However, the vehicle was got registered with the registering authority on 13.08.2012 by the dealer and not by the complainant. He argued that Regional Transport Authority gave authority to dealers to register the vehicle at their own end for the benefit of its customers. He argued that registration can take place only on the basis of sale certificate which was issued by the said Automobile Kapoor's India Pvt. Ltd. in favour of the complainant on 07.08.2012, as such, the validity of its insurance was there which was issued from 11.07.2012 to 10.07.2013. He argued that opposite party wrongly repudiated his claim on the ground that his car was not registered with the registering authority. He argued that from the Ex.OP-2, which is First Appeal No.464 of 2016 6 appended on the record by the insurance company, it would reveal that Private Car Package Policy issued vide policy No.2003023112P301301475 did not have any vehicle number on it. It is only stated in the column 'Registration Number' given under the policy, is mentioned as 'New'.
8. As per the written arguments submitted by the counsel for the respondent he took the plea that when a temporary registration of motor vehicle is issued by a dealer who had been appointed as a registering authority by Additional Transport Authority then in the event when the permanent registration is delayed for any reason then the fee for late registration is charged by the registering authority. However, he further submitted that no late fee was charged from the authorized dealer who filled up Form No.20 in the office of DTO/ Additional Transport Authority or for permanent registration number allotted by the above mentioned authority.
9. We have perused the Punjab Motors Vehicle Act, 1989 in order to find out what are the guidelines issued for getting the vehicle registered in the territory of Punjab. Section 42.2 and sub-para 10 (proviso) of Punjab Motors Vehicle Act states as under:-
"42. Temporary registration of motor vehicle: [Section 43 and Section 65(2)(b)] - (1) When for any reason it is impracticable for the purchaser of a new motor vehicle to obtain a registration certificate in the ordinary course, owing to a temporary closure of the office of the registering authority or for other reasons, or where the purchaser of a new motor vehicle intends to export it at once beyond the limits of the State or to take it immediately to the District where he has his permanent residence or place of business, a temporary certificate of registration mark may be issued by the registering authority, firm of vehicles, dealer or manufacturer of vehicles appointed by the Government in this behalf subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2) and the temporary certificate and registration mark shall for the time being serve all the purposes of a regular certificate of registration and registration mark.First Appeal No.464 of 2016 7
"47. Fee for late registration, assignment of registration mark and transfer of ownership. [Section 65(2)(k)] - The owner of a motor vehicle shall, if be fails to make an application under sub-section (13) of section 41, sub-section (1) of section 47 or sub-section (5) of section 50 within the period specified in rule 54 of the Central rules, be liable to pay the following amount in addition to the fee specified for registration, assignment of registration mark or transfer of ownership of vehicles under rule 81 of the Central Rules if the same has not already been paid namely :-
For vehicles other For than transport transport vehicle vehicle (in Rupees) (in Rupees)
(i) for delay not Ten Twenty exceeding three months
(ii) for delay exceeding Twenty Forty three months but not exceeding six months
(iii) for delay exceeding Thirty Sixty-five six months but not exceeding twelve months
(iv) for delay exceeding Forty Eighty one year but not exceeding two years
(v) for delay exceeding Fifty One two years hundred.
10. From the perusal of the above, it is clear that no penalty charges were paid for applying the permanent registration number on 10.08.2012 by the Automobile Kapoor's Pvt. Ltd. and it deems to have been considered as the date of applying for the permanent registration number.
11. We have also perused the Motors Vehicle Act. As per the said Act the car can be registered with the registering authority within 30 days from the issuance of Form No.21 i.e. Sale Certificate.
12. As per the arguments raised by the counsel for the respondent/complainant that the Registration Certificate was issued on 13.08.2012 after only six days from the date of sale certificate i.e. First Appeal No.464 of 2016 8 07.08.2012 was within time and the repudiation of the claim was wrongly undertaken by the opposite party.
13. In order to decide the controversy whether the complainant was having permanent registration certificate on 10.08.2012 or he got the permanent registration number on 13.08.2012, we have minutely perused the investigator report. From the perusal of the investigator report the following points have come for our consideration.
14. We have gone through the calendar for the year of 2012. From it, we find that 07.08.2012 was Tuesday. The Sale Certificate was generated by the Automobile Kapoor's Pvt. Ltd. on 07.08.2012. However, 10.08.2012, being Friday, was the last working day of the DTO's office and 11.08.2012 and 12.08.2012 being Saturday and Sunday were weekly off in the DTO office in Amritsar. The surveyor has gone to the office of Automobile Kapoor's Pvt. Ltd. agency two times to investigate the case of the complainant.
15. The investigator in his report has stated that he had taken the Bank account statement of Automobile Kapoor's Pvt. Ltd. alongwith a Letter Pad, wherein the said dealer confirmed that the cheque issued in favour of DTO was debited from their account on 13.08.2012. The said investigator had also gone to the office of the DTO from where he got an endorsement on his investigation report that the amount of permanent registration number of the complainant's car was deposited in the account of the DTO on 13.08.2012.
16. From the perusal of the investigation report, we find that the cheque which was issued in favour of DTO by the Automobile First Appeal No.464 of 2016 9 Kapoor's Pvt. Ltd. was deposited in the office of DTO on 10.08.2012 on Friday being the last working day of the week. The cheque collected by the DTOs office on 10.08.2012 was sent to their Banker for collection for the credit to their account on 11.08.2012 being Saturday. The Bankers of the DTO Office prepared the clearing schedule to be presented in clearing house on the next working day. The next day i.e. 12.08.2012 being Sunday the Banks were closed and no clearing house was functioning on that day. Thus, the clearing schedule prepared for cheques on Saturday i.e. 11.08.2012 was presented in clearing house on 13.08.2012. Accordingly, the cheques issued in favour of DTO and collected by the DTO office on 10.08.2012, would stand credited in their account after 10.08.2012. As per the above steps the amount would only be credited in the account of DTO on 13.08.2012.
17. We find that the insurance company is trying to defeat the purpose of insurance taken by the complainant by citing that the complainant's car was without a permanent registration number. However, from the perusal of Ex.C-9 dated 07.08.2012 pertains to registration details wherein the full details have been provided towards fee details as under:-
REGISTRATION DETAILS Owner Details 07.08.2012 Owner Name : Inderjit Singh Relationship : S/o Relative Name : Ajmer Singh Permanent H.No.93, Gali No.6, Address Shaheed Udham Singh Nagar, SW City Amritsar Pin Road, Amritsar Postal H.No.93, Gali No.6, Address Shaheed Udham Singh Nagar, SW Postal City Amritsar Postal Pin:
Road, Amritsar Phone 9876829916 Annual 0 Sex Male Income First Appeal No.464 of 2016 10 Vehical Details Vehicle Private Vehicle Vehicle Motor Car Manufacturer Tata Motors Class Type Ltd.
Make Indigo CS E-LX IV Body Type Saloon Fuel Diesel
CR
Toolkit No: Tank No: Date of 01.03.2012
Manufacturer
Color Procelain White
Wheel 0 Number of 4
Base: Cylinder
Horse 70 HP Cubic 1396 CC Seating 4+1
Power Capacity Capacity
Standing 0 Unladen 1105 Kg. Laden 1105 kg
Capacity Weight Weight
Chassis No. MAT601465CW21841 Engine No. 14CRAIL08CXY Steering Power
W15519
Gross 1105 Kg Registered 1105 Kg Sale Amount 5,24,881
Weight Weight
Insurance Details
Company United India Branch Amritsar Branch Amritsar
Name Insurance Code Name
Branch Amritsar Policy 4288 Insurance 11.07.2012
Place Number From
Insurance 10.07.2013 Insurance Comprehensive
To Type
Hypothication Details
Financer HDFC Bank Ltd. Financer Amritsar Finance 11.07.2012
Name Address From
Financer to 10.07.2016 Pin 143001
Fee Details
Registration Rs.300 Smart Card Fees: Rs.200
Fees
Vehicle Tax Rs.20996 Society Fees Rs.200
HSRP Fees Rs.336 Total Amount Rs.22032
18. From the perusal of Ex.C-10, we find that the Registration number was provided by Automobile Kapoor's Pvt. Ltd. being the designated Registering Authority appointed by the Regional Transport Authority.
19. In these circumstances, it cannot be said there was no valid Registration number which was issued to the complainant. We find that the insurance company is trying to take advantage of the two First Appeal No.464 of 2016 11 days i.e. 11.08.2012 and 12.08.2012, when DTO office was closed in order to deprive the complainant of his rightful dues.
20. Thus, in the present circumstances a clear picture appears that the Automobile Kapoor's Pvt. Ltd. applied for permanent registration number for the car of the complainant, as temporary registration was to expire at midnight of 10.08.2012. The registering fees as per the above enumerated steps for collection of instruments was given for the credit in the account of DTO on 10.08.2012 and thereafter as on 11.08.2012, and 12.08.2012 i.e. Saturday and Sunday being holidays it was credited in the account of DTO on 13.08.2012.
21. It is an admitted fact that insurance was done mentioning Engine No. 015519 Chassis No.021841. The terms and conditions on the basis of which insurance was done were never brought to the notice of the complainant and were not got signed from the complainant and no record has been placed on record to this effect.
If once the policy has been issued on the basis of engine number and chassis number and no registration number was mentioned in the cover note then merely on the ground that it was not having permanent or temporary registration number, insurance claim cannot be repudiated. Otherwise also theft has no nexus with the provisions of Motors Vehicles Act and Rules. Specific case of the complainant is that the vehicle was parked and was taken away from that place. In our view there is no violation of terms and conditions of the policy.
22. It is the tendency of the insurance companies that they give you big print, they take away in small print. The policy contract is crowded with exceptions, exclusions, limitations, conditions and First Appeal No.464 of 2016 12 warranties. There are 'ifs' and 'whiles' clauses and sub-clauses which overpower the so called 'big print' as a policy.
23. In view of the above observation, we do not find any merit in the present appeal filed by the appellant/opposite party and the same is dismissed.
24. The appellant had deposited a sum of `25,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal. It deposited another sum of `2,50,000/- vide receipt dated 11.08.2016, in compliance of the order dated 01.08.2016. Both these sums, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the District Forum, after the expiry of 45 days of the sending of certified copy of the order to them. The complainant may approach the District Forum for the release of the above amount and the District Forum may pass an appropriate order in this regard. The opposite party is directed to deposit the remaining amount in the District Forum within 60 days from the date of this order.
25. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL) PRESIDENT (HARCHARAN SINGH GURAM) MEMBER June,06, 2017 parmod