State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Alok Chandrakar vs Bajaj Allianz General Insurance ... on 17 April, 2015
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G.)
Appeal No.FA/14/526
Instituted on : 07.08.2014
Alok Chandrakar,
S/o Bihavan Chandrakar, Age - 33 years,
R/o : Village Sirsida, Post : Matwari,
Tehsil Gunderdehi, District Balod (C.G.) ..... Appellant
Vs.
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company,
Address : Shiv Mohan Bhawan,
Vidhan Sabha Marg, Pandri,
Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent
PRESENT: -
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE MS. HEENA THAKKAR, MEMBER
HON'BLE SHRI D.K. PODDAR, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES: -
Shri R.K.Bhawnani, for the appellant.
Shri Manoj Prasad, for the respondent.
ORDER
Dated : 17/04/2015 PER :- HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT. This appeal is directed against the order dated 24.07.2014, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg (C.G.) (henceforth "District Forum"), in Complaint Case No.CC/14/15. By the impugned order, the learned District Forum, has dismissed the complaint of the appellant (complainant).
// 2 //
2. Briefly stated the facts of the complaint are that : that appellant (complainant) is owner of vehicle Bolero of Mahindra & Mahindra Company bearing registration No.C.G.04-8690. The appellant (complainant) had taken insurance policy for the said vehicle for the period from 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2013. On 22.07.2012, the appellant (complainant) parked the vehicle in question in front of house of Mr. Chintaram Chandrakar, who is brother of father in law of the appellant (complainant) and the vehicle was duly locked. At about 3.00 A.M., when the appellant (complainant) woke up, then he found that the vehicle was not kept in the place where he parked it and some unknown person had stolen the vehicle. He searched the vehicle here and there, but vehicle could not be traced, then Mr. Chintaram Chandrakar, gave intimation to Police Station, Gunderdehi on telephone and also to the respondent (O.P.). The Police Station, Gunderdehi, sent message to different Police Stations via wireless set. Thereafter, the appellant (complainant lodged report on 2707.2012 at Police Station, Gunderdehi where offence No.108/2012 under Section 379 IPC was registered. The respondent (O.P.) was intimated regarding the incident of theft on telephone on the same day. The appellant (complainant) was told by the official of the respondent (complainant) that claim form will be issued to him when he will bring copy of First Information Report. After making several request by the appellant (complainant), the respondent (O.P.) issued claim form to him and // 3 // thereafter the appellant (complainant) after completing all formalities, submitted the claim form along with relevant documents before the respondent (O.P.). The claim of the appellant (complainant) was repudiated by the respondent (O.P.) on 31.10.2012 on the ground that report was lodged after 5 days of the incident. The appellant (complainant) filed consumer complaint before the District Forum and prayed for granting reliefs as mentioned in the relief clause of the complaint.
3. The respondent (O.P.) filed written statement and averred that a false report was lodged by the appellant (complainant). The report was lodged after five days of the incident, which is belated. The appellant (complainant) had the vehicle on open space / unauthorized parking area without any safety measures and the vehicle was being used by the appellant (complainant) without obtaining Certificate of Registration, which is violation of provisions of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, therefore, the appellant (complainant) is not entitled to get any compensation from the respondent (O.P.). The respondent (O.P.) has rightly repudiated the claim of the appellant (complainant).
4. Learned District Forum, after having considered the material placed before it by both the parties, dismissed the complaint holding that the appellant (complainant) has sent intimation regarding the incident of theft to the respondent (O.P.) belatedly and therefore, the // 4 // respondent (O.P.) has rightly repudiated the claim of the appellant (complainant) and did not commit any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
5. The appellant (complainant) has filed documents. Annexure - 1 is l Report of Police, Annexure 2 is First Information Report, Annexure 3 is Final Report (Under Section 173 Cr. P.C.), Annexure 4 is Crime Details Form, Annexure 5 is Rojnamcha Sanha dated 21.07.2012, Annexure 5 is Temporary Certificate of Registration Temporary Registration Mark, Annexure 7 is Form 22 Initial Certificate of Compliance with Pollution Standards, Safety Standards of Components and Road Worthiness, issued by Mahindra & Mahindra Limited, Annexure 8 is Form 21 Sales Certificate issued by Ralas Motros, Raipur, Annexure 9 is Tax Invoice dated 31.03.2012 issued by Ralas Motors, Raipur, Annexure 10 is Motor Vehicle Cover Note issued by Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, Raipur (C.G.), Annexure 11 is Certificate Cum Policy Schedule along with Terms and Conditions etc., Annexure 12 is letter dated 20.12.2012 sent by the respondent (O.P.) to the appellant (complainant).
6. The respondent (O.P.) has also filed documents. Document NA-1 is duplicate copy of the insurance policy along with terms and conditions, NA-2 is First Information Report, NA-3 & 4 are acknowledgments, NA-5 is letter dated 20.10.2012 sent by the // 5 // respondent (O.P.) to the appellant (complainant), NA-6 is letter dated 20.10.2012 sent by the respondent (O.P.) to appellant (complainant), NA-7 is letter dated 31.10.2012 sent by the respondent (O.P.) to the appellant (complainant) , NA-8 is intimation given by the appellant (complainant) to the respondent (O.P.), NA-9 is email sent by the respondent (O.P.), NA-10 is Temporary Certificate of Registration Temporary Registration Mark, NA-11 is Investigation Report dated 18.10.2012 of National Claims Bureau Inc., NA-12 is Motor Vehicle Cover Note, NA-13 is Insurance Cover Note, NA-14 is Tax Invoice, NA- 15 is Form 21 Sales Certificate and NA-16 is statement of the appellant (complainant) recorded by the Investigator.
7. Shri R.K. Bhawnani, learned counsel appearing for the appellant (complainant) has argued that the appellant (complainant) had applied for Certificate of Registration before the concerned R.T.O. and the appellant (complainant) was waiting for choice number and for want of choice number, the vehicle could not be registered with concerned R.T.O. The incident of theft took place on 22.07.2012, then the appellant (complainant) immediately obtained temporary certificate of registration, and the appellant (complainant) had already applied for Certificate of Registration before the concerned R.T.O. The learned District Forum has dismissed the complaint on the ground of delay in giving intimation to the respondent (O.P.) which is not justified. He further argued that intimation regarding the incident of theft was // 6 // immediately given to the Police Station, Gunderdehi where rojnamcha sanha was recorded and the Police Station, Gunderdehi also sent message regarding the theft of the vehicle to different Police Stations via wireless set and regular First Information Report was registered by the Police Station, Gunderdehi on 27.07.2012. He further argued that from bare perusal of the rejnamcha sanha, it appears that the appellant (complainant) gave intimation regarding the incident of theft immediately. The finding of the District Forum that the intimation regarding the incident of theft was given by the appellant (complainant) to the respondent (O.P.) belatedly, is erroneous and the impugned order is liable to be set aside. If the appellant (complainant) had lodged report after five day, even the appellant (complainant) is entitled to get compensation on non-standard basis. The impugned order passed by the District Forum, is erroneous and is not sustainable in eye of law and the impugned order is liable to be set aside. He placed reliance on judgment of this Commission in T. Laxman Murty vs. United India Insurance Company Limited (Appeal No.FA/13/485) decided on 01.04.2014.
8. Shri Manoj Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the respondent (O.P.) has argued that the respondent (O.P.) has repudiated the claim of the appellant (complainant) on two counts, firstly that the vehicle in question was not registered with the concerned R.T.O at the time of incident of theft, and the vehicle was being used by the appellant // 7 // (complainant) without valid Certificate of Registration violating mandatory provisions of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and secondly the appellant (complainant) did not inform the respondent (O.P.) immediately regarding the incident and had sent the intimation to the respondent (O.P.) belatedly. He placed reliance on judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Narinder Singh vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Ors., IV (2014) CPJ 11 (SC).
9. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and have also perused the record of the District Forum.
10. Learned District Forum has dismissed the complaint on the ground that the intimation regarding the incident of theft was given by the appellant (complainant) to the respondent (O.P.) belatedly, therefore, the respondent (O.P.) has a right to repudiated the claim of the appellant (complainant). Learned District Forum, did not consider regarding Certificate of Registration of the vehicle.
11. The respondent (O.P.) has filed document NA-7 is letter dated 31.10.2012 by which claim of the appellant (complainant) was repudiated by the respondent (O.P.). In the said document, it is mentioned thus :-
"This is in reference to the above claim registered by your good self on 27- July-12 in respect of theft of captioned vehicle.
The following are observed from the documents submitted by your good self and the information gathered :
// 8 //
1. The subject vehicle was parked on open space / unauthorized parking area without any safety measures. Thus you have failed to take minimum reasonable care violating policy terms and condition no.5.
The insured shall take all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle insured from loss or damage and to maintain it in efficient condition and the company shall have at all times free and full access to determine the vehicle insured or any part thereof any driver or employee of the insured."
2. There is substantial and unexplained delay between the actual date of accident and the intimation to our office about the reported loss. As per claim intimation, date of loss is 22-JUL-12, but you have informed us on 27-JUL-12. As well as three is also delay in FIR which is informed on 27-JUL-2012 in Police Station i.e. 5 days. As per Condition 1 of the Insurance Policy, "Notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately upon the occurrence of any accident or loss or damage and in the event of any claim and thereafter the insured shall give all such information and assistance as the company shall require."
3. That the said vehicle was being driven without registration. This is in violation of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 39, terms as "No person shall drive any Motor Vehicle and no owner of 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 described in the prescribed manner".
12. In document NA-7 ground no.3 is mentioned, which is in respect of the registration of the vehicle.
// 9 //
13. Now we shall examine whether the appellant (complainant) has violated the provisions of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ?
14. 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."
15. 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, // 10 // 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."
16. In Narinder Singh vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. and others (Supra), 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."
17. 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 statutory requirement regarding registration of the vehicle, the complainant was not entitled to get claim even on non-standard basis.
// 11 //
18. 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.
19. In Niranjan Kumar Yadav vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. 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 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 credibility."
20. In Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Through its duly constituted attorney vs. Vidya Bai, 2015 (1) CLT 534, Hon'ble National // 12 // Commission has observed in para 9 that in 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 temporary 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 remain busy to help her husband, it cannot be a sufficient ground for not getting the vehicle registered for 110 days. In such situation, I did not find any deficiency on the part of the petitioner in repudiation of the claim.
21. The appellant (complainant) has filed Temporary Certificate of Registration (Annexure - 6), Sales Certificate (Annexure - 8), Insurance Policy (Annexure 11). In Insurance Policy, it is mentioned that the vehicle in question was insured with the respondent (O.P.) on 02.04.2012 for the period from 02.04.2012 to 01.04.2013.
22. From bare perusal of Tax Invoice (Annexure 9) filed by the appellant (complainant), it appears that the order for purchasing the vehicle in question was placed by the appellant (complainant) to Ralas Motors, Raipur (C.G.) on 22.03.2012 and the vehicle was purchased by him on 31.03.2012. In Temporary Certificate of Registration (Annexure
- 6) the date of issuance is mentioned as 23.07.2012 and the registration was valid upto 22.08.2012.
// 13 //
23. We have perused the rojnamcha sanha (Annexure 5) and First Information Report (Annexure 2) and site map. From bare perusal of these documents, it appears that the incident of theft of the vehicle in question took place in intervening night of 21-22/07/2012 and the date of registration of the vehicle in question is 23.07.2012 i.e. after one day of the incident. It appears that at the time of the incident of theft, the Certificate of Registration was not obtained by the appellant (complainant).
24. In the instant case, the appellant (complainant) did not file any document to show that he had applied for Certificate of Registration of the vehicle in question to the concerned R.T.O. before incident of theft of the vehicle. On the date of the incident, the appellant (complainant) was using the vehicle in question on public road without any registration certificate, which is not only an offence under Section 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 but it is also a fundamental breach of terms and conditions of the policy.
25. Learned District Forum, has dismissed the complaint on the ground of delay in intimation, but in the instant appeal, the ground of delay in intimation, has not been discussed by us and the complaint has been dismissed on the sole ground that the vehicle in question was being used by the appellant (complainant) without obtaining Certificate of Registration.
// 14 //
26. The appeal filed by the appellant (complainant) being devoid of any merits, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to the cost of this appeal.
(Justice R.S. Sharma) (Ms. Heena Thakkar) (D.K. Poddar)
President Member Member
/04/2015 /04/2015 /04/2015