State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance ... vs Roshan Lal S/O Sh. Ram Singh on 29 November, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. 699 of 2008
Date of institution : 8.7.2008
Date of Decision : 29.11.2012
1. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, Registered office at
GE Plaza, Airport Road, Yerwada, Pune-411006.
2. Branch Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited,
Near BMC Chowk, G.T. Road, Jalandhar.
(1 and 2 through its authorized signatory, Senior Legal Executive, Bajaj
Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, S.C.O. No. 139-140,
Sector 8-C, Chandigarh)
....Appellants.
Versus
1. Roshan Lal s/o Sh. Ram Singh, Proprietor, M/s National Glass Galary,
House No. ES 225, Makhdoom Pura, Near Gurudwara, Jalandhar-
144001.
2. M/s Swani Motors Pvt. Ltd., Near BMC Chowk, G.T. Road, Jalandhar.
...Respondents.
First Appeal against the order dated 11.3.2008 of
the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Jalandhar.
Before:-
Shri Piare Lal Garg, Presiding Member.
Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member.
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Rahul Sharma, Advocate for
Mrs. V.A. Talwar, Advocate
For respondent No. 1 : Sh. Vijay Rana, Advocate
For respondent No. 2 : Sh. Munish Goel, Advocate
PIARE LAL GARG, PRESIDING MEMBER:
This is an appeal filed by the appellant-Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited(hereinafter called 'the appellants') against the order dated 11.3.2008 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar(hereinafter called the 'District Forum') by which the complaint of the respondent No.1/complainant (hereinafter called 'respondent No.1') was allowed by the District Forum. First Appeal No. 699 of 2008 2
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 1 purchased Swift VX1 BS-III car on 20.12.2006 from respondent No. 2 by spending an amount of Rs. 4,29,936.31. At the time of delivery temporary registration number was issued for the said car. Respondent No. 1 also insured his car with the appellants by paying premium of Rs. 15,462/- for the period of 20.12.2006 to 19.12.2007. On 1.4.2007, car of respondent No. 1 was stolen at Ludhiana. FIR No. 34 dated 2.4.2007 under Section 379 IPC was registered at P.S. Division No. 3, Ludhiana. Appellants were also intimated regarding the theft of the car and requested number of times to make the payment but the appellants delayed the matter on one pretext or the other. Legal notice was also served upon the appellants but the appellants did not reply to the same. The complaint was filed with the prayer that the appellants may be directed to pay Rs. 4,29,936.31p as insured amount, Rs. 60,000/- as compensation for mental tension and harassment and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation expenses totaling Rs. 4,94,936.31p.
3. Upon notice, the appellants replied by taking preliminary objections the District Forum has no jurisdiction to try and decide the complaint, complaint was not maintainable because there was no deficiency in service on the part of the appellants. Respondent No. 1 suppressed the material facts before the District Forum, as such, is not entitled for any relief, complaint was false and frivolous. On merits, insurance of the car was admitted by the appellants. It was also admitted that respondent No. 1 had filed insurance claim with the appellants but not provided all the requisite documents. Letter dated 15.6.2007 in this regard was written to respondent No. 1 and demanded 12 documents but respondent No. 1 failed to provide the same. It was pleaded that respondent No. 1 had violated Section 43 of the Motor Vehicles Act by not registering his vehicle within 30 days from the date of purchase. It was First Appeal No. 699 of 2008 3 further pleaded that respondent No. 1 did not provide untraceable report to the appellant. Legal notice dated 28.5.2007 was replied vide letter dated 15.6.2007 and respondent No. 1 was asked to supply certain documents. All other allegations were denied and dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
4. Upon notice, respondent No. 2 appeared and pleaded that respondent No. 1 did not inform about the theft of the car nor the answering respondent was liable to pay the insurance amount because there was no lapse on the part of the answering respondent.
5. Learned District Forum after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, allowed the complaint with costs of Rs. 2,000/- and the appellants were directed to pay Rs. 4,09,008/- with 9% interest to respondent No. 1 from the date of filing of the complaint till payment. However, respondent No. 1 was directed to give subrogation letter to the appellants within one month from the receipt of copy of the order.
6. Hence, the appeal.
7. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, grounds of appeal, perused the record of the learned District Forum and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.
8. There is no dispute that respondent No. 1 had insured his Swift car with the appellants for the period of 20.12.2006 to 19.12.2007. It is also admitted fact between the parties that the vehicle was stolen on 1.4.2007. An FIR under Section 379 IPC was registered.
9. It is the version of the appellants that till the date of theft, the car was not got registered with the Vehicle Registering Authority by respondent No. 1 i.e. within 30 days from the date of purchase of the vehicle and violated Section 43 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It was also First Appeal No. 699 of 2008 4 pleaded by the appellants that respondent No. 1 did not provide the documents demanded vide letter dated 15.6.2007 as well as untraced report issued by the competent authority.
10. The only ground of the appellants for the repudiation of the claim is that at the time of theft of the car, the car was not registered with the registering authority and the period of 30 days had already been lapsed, as such, there was no liability of the appellants to pay the insurance amount to respondent No. 1.
11. The Hon'ble Jharkhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ranchi in case "Rajendra Prasad Tiwary Versus New India Assurance Company & Ors.", I(2007)5 CPJ 391 held that even non registration of the vehicle cannot be a ground for repudiation of the just claim under the policy.
12. It was also held by the Hon'ble National Commission in case "HDFC Chubb General Insurance Co. Ltd. versus ILA Gupta & Ors.", I (2007) CPJ 274 (NC) that in the present case, non-registration of the Vehicle did not lead to this accident and observed in paras No. 2 & 3 as follows:-
"2. As far as getting a Permanent Registration Number is concerned, admittedly, for want of a good Registration Number, more time was taken and the respondent got it registered later. In the present case, non-registration of the Vehicle did not lead to this accident. It was just a damage arising out of a car falling into the pothole. It is not the case of the petitioner that they were not aware of the car being registered under the Temporary Registration Number while the policy was issued. An amount of Rs. 81,476 was paid as a premium for getting the car comprehensively insured. As it was very much within the knowledge of the petitioner Insurance Company that the policy could not continue to be valid due to non-provision of the Permanent Registration Number, they should have cancelled the policy in order to make the respondent take another policy or revalidate the same according to the policy conditions or whatever that was required to be done. This has not been done by the petitioner Insurance Company.First Appeal No. 699 of 2008 5
3. The premium amount is not a meager amount and the services that should have been rendered by the petitioner are not sufficient enough for the respondent to bring it within his knowledge that there is a lapse on his part. On such flimsy grounds, the petitioner Insurance Company cannot repudiate the claim. If they were so strict about the said conditions, knowing fully well that the Temporary Registration Number has not been made permanent, they should have brought it into the knowledge of the respondent and cancelled the policy within a reasonable time, which has not been done. Taking hefty premium of Rs. 81,476 from the respondent and thereafter repudiating the claim on flimsy ground is not justifiable."
13. This Commission also dealt with this point thoroughly in First Appeal No. 446 of 2001 titled as "M/s Bharti AXA General Insurance Company Limited versus Mrs. Venus" decided 16.8.2011 and followed the above proposition of law that non-registration of the vehicle within the stipulated time frame is no ground to repudiate the claim of the insured and Revision Petition No. 3095 of 2011 against the said order was dismissed by the Hon'ble National Commission vide its order dated 30.9.2011.
14. It was also held recently by the Hon'ble National Commission in Revision Petition No. 52 of 2012 by following the order passed in R.P. No. 497 of 2012 that insurance company was not entitled to repudiate the claim only on the ground that the vehicle was not registered at the time of incident. It was also held by the Hon'ble National Commission in its recent decisions passed in Revision Petition No. 4043 of 2008 and Revision Petition No. 171 of 2012 by upholding the view taken by the Hon'ble Commission in "HDFC Chubb General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. ILA Gupta and ors.(supra).
15. In view of the above proposition of law and the facts of the present case, we are of the view that repudiation of the claim for non- registration of the vehicle is illegal.
16. The order passed by the learned District Forum on merits is legal and valid and there is no ground to interfere with the same. The First Appeal No. 699 of 2008 6 appeal being without any merit is dismissed and the impugned order of the District Forum is affirmed and upheld. No order as to costs.
17. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 20.11.2012 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
18. The appellants had deposited 50% of the amount awarded by the District Forum with this Commission(minus the amount deposited at the time of filing the appeal) in compliance with the order dated 1.8.2008. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to respondent No. 1 by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellants.
19. Remaining amount shall be paid by the appellants to respondent No. 1 within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of the order.
20. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(Piare Lal Garg)
Presiding Member
November 29, 2012. (Vinod Kumar Gupta)
as Member