State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
1.M/S. Bharti Axa General Insurance Co. ... vs M/S. Opulentus Overseas Careers Pvt ... on 12 March, 2024
1
BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION:HYDERABAD
(ADDITIONAL BENCH)
FA. No. 227/2019
AGAINST ORDERS
IN
CC. No. 250/2015
ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT CONSUM ER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
FORUM-1 HYDERABAD
Between :
1. M/s. Bharati AXA General Insurance Company Ltd.,
3rd Floor, H.No.6-3-666/B/6, Gokul Towes, Panjagutta,
Hyderabad-500082, Telangana State,
Represented by its Managing Director.
2. M/s. Bharti AXA General Insurance Company Ltd.,
1st Floor, The Ferns Icon, Survey No.28,
Doddanekundi, Bangalore -560037, Karnataka State.
Represented by its Managing Director.
.....Appellants/Opposite Parties.
verses
M/s. Opulentus Overseas Careers Private Limited,
Having its head office at Plot No. 1128, 2nd Floor,
Jubilee Square Road No.36, Jubilee Hills,
Hyderabad, Pin No 500033, Represented
by Ms. D. Pramidha Dirctor.
...Respondent/Complainant
Counsel for the Appellants/Opp. Parties : M/s. Katta Laxmi
Prasad & M/s. Katta Sravya
Counsel for the Respondent/Complainant : Sri V. Shiva Kumar
QUORUM: HON'BLE SRI K.RANGA RAO, M EMBER),
&
Hon'ble Smt.R.S.Rajeshree, M ember (N-J)
TUESDAY THE TW ELTH DAY OF M ARCH,
TW O THOUSAND TWENTY FOUR
*****
ORDER :(HON'BLE SRI K.RANGA RAO, M EMBER)
1. This appeal is filed by the Appellants /Opposite parties 1 & 2 U/s. 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, praying this commission to 2 set aside the order dated 11.03.2019 passed in CC 250/2015 by the District Consumer disputes Redressal Forum-1 Hyderabad and consequently to dismiss the compliant and pass such other order or orders as this commission may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
2. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to as arrayed in the Complaint.
3. The respondent is the complainant and appellants 1 and 2 are the opposite parties in CC 250/2015.
4. Briefly stated the case of the Complainant as per the averments of the complaint is that he purchased Range Rover-Model Sport 3.OL TDV6 HSE Car in the month of June 2014 and got the same insured with the opposite party by paying a sum of Rs. 2, 57,000/-
towards the premium of the policy bearing No.FPV/11646787/51/06/C15152 and the car was temporally registered. While the things stood thus on 28-09-2014 while the
Complainant and his personnel were returning from Atmakur Village, Mahaboob Nagar District, to Hyderabad some problem was observed on the right side rear wheel of the vehicle, when the car reached Shadnagar, He stopped the car and intimated to the local dealer M/s. Inline 4 Motors Private limited Hyderabad. The said local dealer initially deputed a mechanic. Due to bad condition of vehicle it was towed to the workshop situated at Sherilingampally near Kondapur, Hyderabad.
3
5. After inspecting the vehicle by the mechanic, it was found that minor damages are found at RH rear alloys with rings only and some scratches to the left front and rear doors. A pre-job card was issued on 29-09-2014 to that effect. Complainant left the vehicle for attending the repairs since it was having insurance coverage. 22 days thereafter M/s. Inline 4 Motors delivered the car to the complainant and handed over the bill for a sum of Rs.4,12,685/- towards repairs cost. When the same was informed to opposite parties, they refused to pay the amount. Thereupon the Complainant approached the opposite parties and requested the pay the amount as the accident was occurred during the currency of policy period but opposite party refused to the pay the said amount. Hence the Complainant was constrained to pay the bill amount to M/s Inline Motors Pvt. Ltd towards repair charges and later got issued legal notice on 04.12.2024 to opposite parties calling upon them to reimburse the cost of repairs. Opposite parties got issued reply to said legal notice on 25.03.2015 stating that the vehicle was not permanently registered within the one month of purchase and the temporary registration was not extended by the date of accident and hence the claim was rejected.
6. The Complainant further submits that there was no nexus between cause of accident and for not getting the permanent registration done to the vehicle in one month time. The refusal of the opposite parties to pay the cost of repairs despite the insurance policy of the vehicle was in force, amounts unfair trade practice and deficiency of service and made the Complainant to undergo mental agony and physical stress.
4
7. The Complainant further submits that he tried to get permanent registration to the vehicle but it was delayed due to non- availability of Form No.22, from the Bangalore dealer/seller but not due to his negligence. In fact he obtained a DD for some of Rs.22, 70,270/- towards life tax in favor of R.T.A. Hyderabad and paid the sum of Rs.3,14,150/- by way of DD dated 21.08.2014 towards full payment of Commercial Tax under Telangana Tax on Entry of Goods in to local Areas ordinance,2001 for permanent registration at Hyderabad. But the dealer at Bangalore did not co-operate and dragged the issue and therefore by the date of accident, car could not be permanently registered. Ultimately the Complainant got the Vehicle permanently registered on 07.11.2014, immediately after receipt of the required documents and same shows that the Complainant is law abiding citizen and comply with the lawful formalities.
8. The Complainant further submits that non registration of the vehicle on permanent basis is not at all matter of the insurance. The motor vehicle Act does not permit to ply on the roads and it is the responsibility of concerned R.T.O to check such violation and insurer opposite parties is nothing to do with the same. For the negligence on the part of the vendor in not providing Form-22, the Complainant should not be made suffer. The repudiation of the claim of the Complainant by the Opposite parties amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency of the service. Hence the compliant.
9. Opposite party No. 2 filed written version which was adopted by opposite party No.1, wherein the opposite party admit issuing of the insurance policy for the vehicle of the Complainant but denied rest of 5 the allegations of the Complainant. The defense of the Opposite parties in written version in that policy is a contractual document between the Opposite parties and Complainant and is subject to the insured/ Complainant complying with Motor Vehicle's Act and rules made there under with the terms, conditions and exclusions . The spirit of insurance policy is subject to insured complying with the provision s of Motor Vehicle's Act and rules and the liability contracted will be further subject to the terms, conditions and exclusions under the policy. Admittedly the vehicle was under temporary registration and it was not permanently registered within the time permitted under law and hence the Complainant was estopped from plying the vehicle on public road without permanent registration and without extension of temporary registration. Hence policy does not cover the risk of plying the vehicle after expiry of temporary registration. Admittedly on 28.09.2024 the vehicle was on National Highway when the accident was occurred. When the local mechanic from M/s. Inline 4 Motors Private limited inspected the vehicle and noteing out the problem of the vehicle, issued job card which fact not brought to the notice of the Opposite parties/insurer. Since the vehicle was not permanently registered and there was no extension of temporary registration beyond the one month period, plying of the vehicle on the National Highway amounts to violation of policy terms and conditions. Hence claim amount spent for attending the repairs of the vehicle has been rejected. Moreover the averments of the Complaint are vageu and there is no mention as to who is driving the vehicle at the time of the accident, the driving license of the person driving vehicle, his knowledge of the usage of the technically superior car with the latest technology specially the necessary and mandatory precautions to be taken as explained and 6 described in the owner's manual when the vehicle is to be driven on the road, the basic precautions to be followed.
10. To the legal notice of the Complainant, reply was given on 25.03.2030 and there is no illegality in repudiation of the claim. The vehicle having been purchased in the month of June 2014 with a temporary registration for one month, it was not permanently registered as on 28.09.2014 and even according to the complainant the permanent registration was done on 07.11.2014 and the same shows that the Complainant plied the vehicle without any sort of registration as on the date of the accident which is 28.09.2014. The opposite party further submits there is no unfair trade practice or deficiency of service on their part. Hence the complainant is not entitled for any of the reliefs prayed for. With the above contentions and submissions the opposite parties prayed to dismiss the complainant.
11. During the course of enquiry the Complainant filed his evidence affidavit and got marked Exhibits A1 to A14 on behalf of opposite parties one S. Sharma the Assistant Manger (legal) filed his evidence affidavit but no exhibits were marked for opposite parties .
12. The District Forum-1 Hyderabad after hearing and considering the material available on record allowed the compliant in part directing the opposite parties :
(1) To pay an amount of Rs.4,12,685/- with interest there on at 12 % Per Annum for date of Compliant to date of payment. 7 (2) To pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- toward compensation for causing inconvenience and mental agony to the complainant on account of repudiation of the claim.
(3 ) To pay a sum of Rs.5000/- toward costs.
Time for compliance is 30 days from the date of service of order
13. Agreed by the above order of the District Forum, the Appellant/opposite parties filed present appeal F.A 227/2019 with the following grounds of appeal . The order of the district Forum is contrary to law, Weight of evide nce and probabilities of the case as such the same is liable to set aside. . The Forum below failed to appreciate the fact that the Complainant admitted that his vehicle was having no registration as on the date of accident as the temporary registration had expired. .The Forum below failed to appreciate the fact that the very documents required for the registration to be supplied by the dealer but the same were not given by the dealer to the complainant and therefore the question of deficiency in service or unfair trade practice will squarely apply to the said dealer who is proper and necessary party but the complainant for the reasons known to him deliberately not made the dealer as a party in the consumer complaint.
.The Forum below did not take relevant provision of Motor Vehicle Act and unnecessarily allow the complaint instead of dismissing the same. . The Forum below failed to follow the settled law that without permanent registration any motor vehicle such as the one in case on hand shall not be plied on public road.
.The Forum below failed to appreciate the fact that as on date of accident i.e 28.09.2014 the vehicle of the complainant was not having any sort of registration whether temporary or permanent had 8 admittedly the complainant effected permanent registration to his vehicle on 07.11.2014.
.The Forum below failed to consider the contentions of the opposite parties submitted in their written version and e vidence affidavit of Op2. The repudiation of the claim of the Complainant by the opposite parties is legal and sustainable as such there is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and the compliant of the complainant is liable to be dismissed.
14. With the above grounds of appeal the appellants/opposite parties pray this commission to allow the appeal by setting aside the order dt.11.03.2019 passed in CC 250/2015 and consequently to dismiss the compliant of the complainant.
15. Heard the Arguments of both sides.
16. The point that arises for consideration is whether the impund order passed by the District Forum-1 Hyderabad suffers from any error or irregularity or whether it is liable to be set aside, modified or interfered with, in any manner? To what relief.
17. To decide the point for consideration we have scrupulously and meticulously examined the whole material borne by record and same manifest that it is the specific of the complainant that he purchased a Range Rover Car from M/s. Popular Auto Work pvt.ltd Bangalore in the month of June 2014 and insured the said vehicle with the opposite parties. The vehicle was having temporary registration for 30 days and he could not permanently register the said vehicle as the dealer in 9 Bangalore could not provide Form-22 for registering the vehicle permanently with the R.T.O Authorities. On 28.09.2014 when the complainant and his personnel returning to Hyderabad from Atamakuru village some problem was observed in right side rear wheel of the vehicle near Shadnagar Hyderabad and immediately they stopped the vehicle and intimated to the local dealer M/s Inline 4 Motors Pvt. ltd. Hyderabad, who inspected the vehicle and shifted the same to work shop. The Complainant left the vehicle at the said work shop for effecting the repairs. Twenty two days there after the complainant went to M/s. Inline Motors for taking the delivery but they charged him a bill of Rs. 4,12,685/- . As the insurance policy of the vehicle was in force, he informed the opposite parties about the said amount and asked them to pay the said amount but the opposite parties rejected to pay the same. Subsequently he paid the said amount to M/s. Inline 4 motors and took the delivery of the vehicle. He requested opposite parties repeatedly for the payment of the said amount but they did not pay the same. He also got issued legal notice to the opposite parties asking them to pay the said amount but was of no use and the opposite parties had given reply notice refusing to pay the said amount on the ground that as on the date of the accident, the vehicle was not permanently registered and temporary registration of the vehicle was also expired.
18. It is the contention of Complainant that as the dealer did not give Form-22 he could not effect permanent registration to his vehicle and the same has no nexus to the accident and the insurance policy of the vehicle was in force as such opposite parties are liable to pay 10 Rs.4,12,685/- which amount he paid for the repairs effected to the vehicle.
19. But on the other hand it is the vehement submission of the appellant/opposite parties insurance company that as per section 39 of Motor Vehicle Act 1988, No Motor vehicle shall be plied in a public place without registration.
20. Section 39 Motor vehicle Act is extracted below for ready reference:
Section 39 Necessity for Registration - No Person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of the 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 or 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.
21. A bare perusal of section 39 shows that no person shall drive the motor vehicle in any public place without any valid registration granted by registering authority in accordance with the provisions of the act.
22. From the averments of compliant and from evidence affidavit of complainant, it is clear that the vehicle of the complainant was purchased in the month of June 2014 with the temporary registration 11 for one month. As per the provision of the motor vehicle Act particularly section 39 the vehicle need to be registered permanently for plying the same in public place. Admittedly the temporary registration had expired. The complainant had not taken any steps for extension of temporary registration at least from the concerned authorities. It is an admitted fact by the complainant that as on date of the accident i.e. 28.09.2014 there was no registration of any sort to the vehicle of the complainant. So as per section 39 of Motor vehicle Act 1988 the complainant was not expected to ply his vehicle in public place but admittedly he plied the vehicle in public place as he and his personnel went to Atamakur Village from Hyderabad and while returning from the said village to Hyderabad on 28.09.2014, the said vehicle was involved in the accident .
23. In the case of Narinder Singh v. New India Assurance Company Ltd. and other, 20147 (4) CPJ SC 11, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that Repudiation of claim for damage caused in accident on the ground tha t the vehicle was being driven without registration, which was prohibited under section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and was also an offence under section 192 of the said Act, was held justified.
24. In the Following cases:-
Kaushalendra Kumar Mishra v. Oriental Insurance co. Ltd., II (2012) CPJ 189 (NC);
United India Insurance Co. ltd. v.v Kishore Sharma, 2015 (1) CPJ 189 (NC), it is held that where the vehicle not registered was driven on the road, registration under the Motor Vehicles Act being mandatory the use of such vehicle on the road when the accident occurred was a clear 12 breach of statutory provision which takes it beyond the protection of insurance policy.
25. The preposition of law enunciated in the above case law makes it quiet unequivocal that the insurer is not liable for any claim when the same was in the context of the accident, involving the vehicle, the temporary registration which had expired. In the case on hand admittedly the temporary registration of the vehicle of the complainant had expired. On the date of the accident i.e. 28.09.2014 there was no registration of any sort to the vehicle as such having considered the totality of the facts, we are of the considered opinion that there was no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the appellant/opposite parties insurance company and the repudiation of the claim of the complainant by them is legal and sustainable and the compliant of the complainant is liable to be dismissed. The District Forum gravely erred in allowing the compliant, ignoring section 39 of Motor vehicle Act and settled law which we referred to supra.
26. In the result the appeal is allowed and the impugned order dt.11.032019 passed in CC 250/2015 is set aside and consequently the complaint of the complainant is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.
Typed to the dictation to the Stenographer on system, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on 12.03.2024.
SD/- SD/-
----------------------------------------------
MEMBER(J) MEMBER(NJ)
Dated : 12.03.2024.
Uday