State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Shri Mahinder Singh vs Bajaj Allianz General Insurance ... on 8 October, 2012
BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SOLAN, H
H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SHIMLA.
First Appeal No.93/2012
Date of Decision: 08.10.2012
..
Shri Mahinder Singh son of late
Shri Parma Nand,
R/o Village Kandhar, Post Office
Nathpa,
Tehsil Nichar, District Kinnaur,
H.P.
.. Appellant
Versus
1. Bajaj
Allianz General Insurance Company Limited,
Through its Manager,
Branch Office at Khalini, Shimla.
2. Bajaj
Allianz General Insurance Company Limited,
Through
its Manager,
S.C.O.
139-140, Sector- 8C,
First
Floor, Chandigarh.
Respondents
Coram
Honble Mr. Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President
Honble Mr. Chander Shekhar Sharma, Member
Honble Mrs. Prem Chauhan, Member
Whether approved for reporting?[1]
For the Appellant: Mr. Sanjay Karol, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Suryadeep
Singh Thakur, Advocate
O R D E R:
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) Appellant has assailed the order dated 04.01.2012, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shimla, whereby his complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which he filed against the respondents, has been dismissed.
2. Appellant purchased a Mahindra Bolero Camper and got the same registered, vide No.HP-26A-0698. Vehicle was insured with the respondents for the period from 13.07.2007 to 12.07.2008. It was registered with the Registration Authority, vide certificate of registration, copy Annexure C-1, for the period from 14.08.2007 to 13.08.2009. During subsistence of insurance policy, vehicle met with an accident, report of which was lodged with the police.
Intimation of accident was given to the respondents also. A surveyor deputed by respondents assessed the loss at `2,13,722/-. However, claim was repudiated on the ground that vehicle, in question, was a transport vehicle, but it was being driven by a person (at the time of accident), who possessed the licence to drive only a light motor vehicle (non-transport).
3. Appellant then filed a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking issuance of a direction to the respondents to pay insurance money and also to pay compensation.
4. Respondent contested the complaint, on the same plea, on which claim had been repudiated. Learned District Forum accepted the respondents plea and dismissed the complaint.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant as also the Advocate appearing vice counsel for the respondents and gone through the record.
6. It has been argued on behalf of the appellant that vehicle was registered as a light motor vehicle, as is made out from the copy of registration certificate, Annexure C-1, and, therefore, a person holding licence to drive a light motor vehicle (non-transport), was authorized to drive it. It is true that vehicle is categorized as a light motor vehicle in the relevant column of the certificate of registration, but the period of registration of vehicle is written only two years from 14.08.2007 to 13.08.2009.
7. Vehicles which are used for transport purposes are registered for limited period of two years, as per requirement of Section 56(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, read with Rule-62 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. In case of non-transport vehicles, initial registration (for a new vehicle) is valid for a period of 15 years, per Section 41 (7) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
8. Admittedly, this was a new vehicle, when registered, vide Annexure C-1. It was registered for two years from 14.08.2007 to 13.08.2009. This fact alone is enough to conclude that it was a transport vehicle. Also, we find on record, attached with the certificate of registration, Annexure C-1, certificate of fitness issued under Rule 62 (1) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, which says that certificate will expire on 13.08.2009.
9. Above stated position apart, when claim had been repudiated on the plea that vehicle was a transport vehicle and the person, who was driving it, possessed a licence to drive a light motor vehicle (non-transport), appellant who filed the complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, was supposed to have stated as to what was the nature of the vehicle, as per his understanding. He having not alleged that vehicle was a non-transport, cannot be heard to say that it was a light motor vehicle plain and simple and not a light motor vehicle (transport).
10. In view of the above stated position, appeal is dismissed.
11. One copy of this order be sent to each of the parties, free of cost, as per Rules.
(Justice Surjit Singh) President (Chander Shekhar Sharma) Member (Prem Chauhan) Member October 08, 2012.
*dinesh* [1] Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order?