State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S. Bbr Estates, vs 1. M/S. Reliance General Insurance Co. ... on 17 May, 2022
BRPORE TrHE TElaNGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMIssION:HYDERABAD
C.C.98/2017
Betweon
M/s.BBR Estates, a partnership firm,
Represented by its Managing Partner
Mr.Balrrddy Battini,
Having its otice at 7-4-/SSR/5,
Sai Ram House, Survey No.86/3,
Prashanth Hills, Serlingampally,
Hyderabad - 500 032.
Complainant
And
1.M/s.Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Having its office at Sagar Plaza, 4-1-327 to 337
Abids Road, Hyderabad- 500001 represented
by its Managing Director.
2. M/s.Mahavir Motors, Dealers Mercedes - Benz
Passenger Vehicles, having its office at MB
Towers, Plot No.47 & 48, Madhapur,
Hyderabad.
Pincode- 500 081.
3. M/s. Mercedes Benz India Limited,
E-3, Phase ll1, Chakan Industrial Area,
Kuruli & Nighje Taluka Khed
Chakan, Pune 410501.
(Opposite parties No.2 and 3 are proforma parties
as no claim has been made against them.) Opposite parties
Counsel for the Complainant M/s.S.Nagesh Reddy
Counsel for the opposite parties KRR Associates -OP.No.1
M/s.A.P.Venugopal-OP.No.2
M/s.Narender Naik-OP.No.3
CORAM Hon'ble Sri Justice M.S.K. Jaiswal, President.
And
Hon'ble Smt. Meena Ramanathan, Lady Member
TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MAY, TWO THOUSAND TWENTY Trwo.
Oral Order: (Per Hon'ble Smt. Meena Ramanathan, Lady Member) ****
1. This is a complaint filed by the Complainant under Section 17(1)(a)G) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying as follows:
no.1 to pay the
i. to direct the opposite party
insurance claim of Rs.29,00,426/- made by the
for repairing/replacing the car
complainant
Mercedez-Benz of Obsidian black colour and
model of c250 D BSIV, with temporary
registration bearing no.TS09ARTR1051, based on the estimate furnished by the opposite party no.2;
ii. to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- per day to the
towards losses incurred by the
complainant
complainant due to unavailability of the c a r and payment of parking charges to the opposite party the with them from np.2 for keeping car 20.4.2017 on which date, the opposite party no.l finally repudiated the claim, till the date of disposal of the present complaint;
ii. to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards the compensation for the mental agony and anxiety suffered by the complainant due to the deficiency in service of the opposite party no.2; and iv. to award costs.
2. The brief case of the complainant is as follows:
The complainant is the owner of a Mercedez Benz Car model C250 D BSIV. Opposite party no.3 is the manufacturer and opposite party no.2 is the dealer of the said car. For the said vehicle temporary registration number was given and the permanent registration number is awaited. The said vehicle was insured with the opposite party no.1 under the Reliance Private Car Package Policy bearing Policy no.2202262311008224 and necessary premium totalling to Rs.1,43,769/- has been paid.
On 18.2.2017 the said vehicle of the complainant met with an accident near KBR park and was heavily damaged. The Engineers of opposite party no.2 inspected the vehicle and issued an estimation dt.3.4.2017 for Rs.29,00,426.35 for repairing the damaged parts of the vehicle. The complainant made insurance claim to opposite party no. 1 by submitting required documents and the same was repudiated vide r.dt.7.4.2017 on the following grounds:
a) "The vehicle was under temporary registration 14.12.2016 and the which had expired on complainant had not yet applied for permanent registration of the vehicle. Hence, it is concluded that the vehicle was being used without registration at the time of accident.
b) on scrutinizing the driving license of Mr.Sathwik Reddy Battini who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident, it was observed that the license was not valid to drive the insured vehicle at the time of loss.
c) The person who was driving the vehicle was under
intoxication as per the FIR registered by the police."
Clarifying the above issues the complainant sent a letter dated 13.4.2017 stating that they have submitted required documents to RTA, Kondapur through opposite party no.2 to allot a specifñfc registration number and it was pending though they have complied all the formalities as per the rules and regulations apart from payment of necessary charges. Originals of learning license and subsequent actual driving license of the person who was driving the car also furnished. As per the breath analysis and blood analysis tests conducted on the driver it was observed that he was not under intoxication or under the influence of alcohol and necessary documents to that extent also furnished.
Though the complainant gave the clarifications, the opposite party no.1 had again issued a reply dt.20.4.2017 stating that they have again evaluated the case and they stand by their decision of repudiation of claimn.
The complainant subnits that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in repudiating the claim due to which they have been put to untold hardship and inconvenience and have incurred losses due to unavailability of the car for use, parking charges to be paid to opposite party no.2 for keeping the vehicle. Hence the complaint seeking directions as stated supra.
no. 1 filed contending that
Written version of opposite party
3. on 28.2.2017,
a claim from the complainant
they have received
claiming accidental damages to Benz Car bearing temporary
to have occurred on
registration
no.TS-09-AR-TR-1051 alleged
-Jubilee Hills as
18.2.2017. The crime is registered by the police After receiving the claim, the 18.2.2017.
Crime No.143/2017 on
based the supporting
no.1 evaluated the claim
on
opposite party
of
After careful perusal
documents submitted by the complainant.
observed that the vehicle
the documents and investigations, it was
14.12.2016
which had expired on
was under temporary registration
not applied for permanent
and the complainant had even
vehicle
it is concluded that the
registration of the vehicle. Hence, at the time of the accident.
was being used without registration submits that on scrutinizing the Opposite party no.1 further Mr.Sathwik Reddy Battini who was driving the driving license of it was observed that the license was vehicle at the time of accident, vehicle at the time of loss. On further not valid to drive the insured no.143 dt. 18.2.2017 it is found investigations and perusal of the FIR driving the insured vehicle at the time of that driver who was alcohol which is a violation of accident was under the influence of Sec.1(2)0 of the policy.
partnership firm which is a
As the complainant is a
the complainant is not a consumer as per the
commercial entity,
The opposite party no.1 submits that
Consumer Protection Act.
the vehicle is under hypothecation with YES BANK LTD., Ranigunj, not made the said bank Hyd. and the complainant had deliberately as party to the complaint and hence the complaint should be dismissed for non joinder of necessary parties. The opposite party no.1 submits that the complaint is barred by jurisdiction a s the within the jurisdiction of this opposite party no.3 does not reside has not filed any substantive Commission. The complainant The documents to support their alleged claim of Rs.29,00,426/-.
the complaint with costs.
opposite party no.1 prays to dismiss The opposite party no.2 filed their written version admitting
4. 15.11.2016 and also purchase of the car by the complainant on number admitted that the vehicle was allotted temporary registration and there was a request for allotment of a specific number through the authorities of the RTA. The vehicle was reported to this opposite party with a request for undertaking accidental repairs for which they have issued an estimation for Rs.25,25,849.65 ps. The opposite party submits that they could not undertake the repairs, since the claim of the complainant for reimbursement through insurance was rejected and the vehicle was kept in their workshop with an additional burden to the complainant to pay demurrage charges for use of parking commercial space. The complainant got his vehicle repaired at their own cost and have taken delivery of the same. The opposite party no.2 prayed for dismissal of the complaint against it.
5. Opposite party no.3 filed their written statement stating that that they are not in any way involved in the present dispute and hence have been wrongly made as a party to the present complaint. This opposite party is the manufacturer of the vehicle and sells vehicles in bulk to the authorised dealers who in turn effect the retail sale to the customers. The authorised dealers are independent entities and are not agents of the manufacturer. Authorised dealers are responsible for retail sales and after sales services. The opposite party no.3 submits that the warranty provided for the said vehicle is for 3 years commencing from the date of first registration or date of sales invoice/delivery note registration whichever comes earlier without mileage limitation. The liability of opposite party no.3 is limited to repair/replacement of parts found to be defective within the warranty period. The opposite party submits that no claim is maintainable against this opposite party and opposite party no.2 in respect of the accidental damage caused to the complainant's vehicle and prayed to direct deletion of their name as a party to the complaint.
6. On behalf of the complainant, Evidence Affidavit is filed by Mr.Balreddy Battini, Managing Partner and authorised signatory of the complainant. Exs.Al to A9 are marked on behalf of the complainant. Evidence Affidavit of Mr.U.Bharani Kumar, Legal Manager of opp.party no.1 filed. Exs.B1 to B7 are marked on behalf of the opposite party no.1. Evidence Affidavit of Mr.Umar Farooq ,General Manager of S.R.M. Service and Authorised Signatory of opposite party no.2 filed. Evidence Affidavit of Rameshwar Jagtap, Deputy General Manager Legal Affairs & Secretarial of opposite party no.3 filed. Ex.B8 marked on behalf of 6 the opposite party no.3. Written arguments of opposite party no.3 filed.
7. Heard both sides and perused the entire material available on record.
The point that arises for consideration is whether the opposite partyno.1 has been deficient and negligent in repudiating the claim of the complainant? If yes, is the complainant entitled to the reliefs as prayed for.
9. The case of the complainant in brief, is that he is the owner of a Mercedes Benz Model C 250 D BSIV. He purchased the vehicle form opposite party no.2 , who is the dealer of opposite party no.3. The vehicle was insured with opposite party no.1 under Reliance Private Car Package Policy bearing policy no. 2202262311008224. A sum of Rs. 1,43,769/- was paid to opposite party no.1.
On 18.2.2017 the vehicle met with an accident and was badly damaged. FIR was registered vide FIR No.143 dt.18.2.2017 and opposite party no.2 provided an estimate of Rs.29,00,426.35ps. for repairing and replacing damaged parts of the vehicle. Insurance claim was made on opposite party no.1 and the same was repudiated vide their letter dt.7.4.2017 on the grounds that:
the vehicle was under temporary registration which had expired on 14.12.2016. Since the complainant had not applied for permanent registration opposite party no.1 concluded that the said vehicle was being used without registration at the time of the accident.
Mr.Sathwik Reddy who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident was not holding a valid license . The person driving the vehicle was under the influence of alcohol as per the FlR registered by the police.
10. We have perused the documentary evidence placed on record to consider if the repudiation of claim by opposite partyno.1 has been satisfactorily defended by the complainant.
It is the defcnce of the complainant that at the time of purchasing the vehicle, a request was made to allot a specific number and although the required documents were submitted to the RTA, Kondapur, the registration was kept pending for allotment of the said particular number. In support of this, the complainant has failed to file any proof of submission of documents to the RTA, Kondapur or any letter from them that the allotment of the specific number is kept pending. Even otherwise, merely because the request to register the vehicle is pending, the car cannot be made to ply till the vehicle is registered or temporary registration is extended.
11. The vehicle was delivered to the complainant vide Ex.Al on 15.11.2016 and the Temporary Certificate of Registration was valid rom 15.11.2016 to 14.12.2016. After this period expired the complainant failed to complete the formalities for permanent registration and also failed to provide the necessary proof to show that the application as kept pending at the RTA , Kondapur. The complainant did not extend the Temporary Registration either on its expiry till he obtained the permanent registration for the vehicle.
12. The accident occurred on 18.2.2017, by which time the temporary registration had lapsed and the same is a violation of Sec.39 of Motor Vehicle Act and the stance taken by the opposite party insurance company is further substantiated by the fact that the driver of the vehicle was not holding a valid driving license. A close perusal of the FIR filed vide Ex.B1 reveals that the accused Battini Sathwik Reddy does not have a valid driving license. Even now the driving license is not produced to support the contention of the complainant. Since there are valid grounds of contravention of the terms of the policy, the insurance company has rightfully repudiated the claim and cannot be held liable to indemnify the insured.
13. The provision of law as has been laid down as recently as in United India Insurance Co.Ltd. vs. Susheel Kumar Godara by the Supreme Court in the judgement reported in LL 2021 SC 522 is referred to : that if the insured vehicle is being plied in contravention of any of the terms and conditions of the M.V.Act, the said Act will fall foul of the covenants of the insurance and the well within its competence to repudiate insurance company will be before the Apex Court the vehicle involved the clainm. In the case , valid registration. Since was plying on the roads without posessing the registration of the vehicle expired and the vehicle was since being the Supreme Court held plied on the basis of temporary registration , of law and therefore, the that it is a clear violation of the provisions insurance Company cannot indemnify the insured.
14 In the instant case , similarly the complainant's vehicle was
had
not having a valid registration and the temporary registration
a driver who was not
expired. Moreover, the vehicle was driven by has failed to furnish possessing a valid license. The complainant of having the driver's valid license or substantiate his contention was supposedly kept applied for a permanent registration which pending.
In view of the detailed discussion, we find no merits in the complaint and the same is liable to be dismissed.
15. In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No costs.