DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

Complaint No. 657/25.10.2007

Date of order: 25.3.2009.





1. M/s Maharaja, 86, The Mall, Mall Road, Ludhiana through its Prop. Sh. Kanwaljit Singh.



2. Kanwaljit Singh son of Sh. Beant Singh, aged 53 years, prop. of M/s Maharaja, 86, The Mall, Mall Road, Ludhiana.

(Complainants)

Vs.



Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, 108, 3rd. Floor, Surya Tower, The Mall, Mall Road Ludhiana through its Manager.

(Opposite party)



Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

…..



Quorum:

Sh. T.N. Vaidya, President.

Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Member.



Present:

Sh. Harpreet Singh Advocate for the complainants.

Sh. Ritesh Mahindera Advocate for the opposite party.





O R D E R

T.N. VAIDYA, PRESIDENT:

1. Insurance claim after theft of his vehicle Innova Car was repudiated by opposite party vide letter dated 3.8.2007(Ex.C18). This repudiation has been assailed by the complainant by way of present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

2. Case of the complainant briefly stated is that complainant purchased Toyota Innova Car from M/s Radiant Toyota on 1.3.2006 for Rs. 7,81,000/- and the same was got insured from opposite party vide policy no. 100120377, valid from 1.3.2006 to 28.2.2007. Said vehicle on 28.1.2007 was stolen from Sarabha Nagar Market, Ludhiana, qua which FIR No.20 dated 28.1.2007 in PS Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana was lodged. Opposite party was also telephonically intimated about theft and thereafter through registered letter dated 3.2.2007. Despite making available all required documents, as sought by the opposite party and reminders to settle the claim, they failed to pay and subsequently repudiated the same. Hence, the claim.

3. Opposite party in reply claimed that complainant has suppressed the material facts; complaint involves complicated questions which can not be decided in summary jurisdiction; complaint is abuse of process of the Fora; complainant has no cause of action as they are not guilty of any deficiency in service nor resorted to unfair trade practice. Claim of the complainant was rightly and legally repudiated after applying mind. Further pleaded that the complainant had taken the vehicle for commercial purpose and he failed to co-operate with the investigator by not furnishing the documents required by him despite repeated reminders of the investigator. The complainant is guilty of infringing terms and conditions of the policy and law. Car after purchase was not registered for 11 months. Car was stated to be stolen on 28.1.2007 and got registered with Distt. Transport Officer, Ferozepur on 30.1.2007. He failed to show why it was got registered at Ferozepur instead of Ludhiana. Complainant also failed to give whereabouts of the keys of the car and there was no report qua loss of car keys. Complainant was not vigilant enough to take care of his vehicle. So, claim was rightly repudiated.

4. In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties led their evidence by way of affidavits and documents and stood heard through their respective counsels.

5. After hearing the parties, we feel that due to certain specific reasons apparent on the face of the record, the case is of complex nature, which may not be possible to be determined in summary enquiry like this.

6. We shall now discuss such reason in support of our conclusion.

7. The vehicle was purchased on 1.3.2006 and till its theft on 28.1.2007, the vehicle was not registered with any registration authority under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. Whereas under section 43 of the Motor Vehicle Act,1988 (hereinafter to be described as M.V. Act) owner of the vehicle is required to obtain temporary certificate of registration and temporary registration mark of the vehicle. Such registration is valid for one month only and is not renewable. Such provision clearly spells that the vehicle purchased on 1.3.2006 was required to obtain permanent registration within 30 days i.e. upto 1.4.2006 in view of the provisions of section 39 of the M.V. Act. As that provision prohibits a transferee to drive any motor vehicle unless the same is registered.

8. Section 40 of the M.V. Act shows that vehicle can only be registered before Registering Authority in whose jurisdiction he is residing or place of business where the vehicle is normally kept.

9. In the instant case apparent to know that when according the complainant vehicle was stolen, it was not registered. Had it been registered, number of the vehicle would have been mentioned in the F.I.R. dated 28.11.2007, copy of which is Ex.C.3. Similarly in his intimation letter Ex.C.4 sent to opposite party, qua theft of vehicle, would have mentioned its registration number. In that letter dated 29.1.2007, no such number was mentioned. In other communication of the complainant, such as Ex.C.6 dated 9.2.2007, Ex.C.8 dated 26.5.2007, no such number of the vehicle was communicated. However, opposite party vide letter Ex.C.13 dated 20.6.2007 had required the complainant to supply documents including copy of the R.C. of the vehicle and he then vide reply Ex.C.14 dated 30.6.2007 supplied documents sought for. In such sequence of events, it is apparent that in none of the correspondence, complainant mentioned registration number of the vehicle.

10. Repudiation of the claim is based upon report Ex.R.5 Glide Investigators engaged by the opposite party. It is mentioned by the investigator in his report that R.C. of the vehicle creates serious doubt about registration of the vehicle. Registration of the vehicle was done on 30.1.2007 at Ferozepur, as per repudiation letter Ex.R.6 of the opposite party. We have no reason to disbelieve the plea because after lodging of claim after theft of the vehicle, complainant had never disclosed registration number of the vehicle. So, suggestive of the fact that the vehicle was not carrying any registration number upto that date. Though it was obligatory on the part of the complainant/owner to have obtained the registration certificate of the vehicle after expiry of temporary registration certificate.

11. Further doubt about authenticity of the claim is again highlighted by the opposite party that the opposite party has questioned complainant vide letter Ex.C.14, why instead of Ludhiana complainant got the car registered at Ferozepur. Answer to this was given vide Ex.C.15 that there was no bar to obtain registration certificate from any Registration Authority. Such defence of the complainant is offensive to section 40 of the M.V. Act, which requires the vehicle to be registered with Registration Authority, in whose jurisdiction owner has residence or place of business, where the vehicle is normally kept. Complainant no where pleaded or took plea that he had residence at Ferozepur and business there and consequently he got it registered at Ferozepur. When he obtained the Registration Certificate on 30.1.2007, so, in view of section 45 of the M.V. Act, it is to be taken that the vehicle was produced by him before the Registration Authority at Ferozepur. Though we have nothing on the record whether those provisions were complied or infringed. But consequences create doubt qua authenticity of the claim of the complainant. Consequently, the case is surrounded by suspicious circumstances. Such suspicions can not be satisfied in summary enquiry like this. We feel that matter should be scrutinized thoroughly, where, the parties have opportunity to cross-examine the witness of each other. Adopting of such shall be just and fair for determination of dispute.

12. Therefore, we refrain ourselves from deciding the complaint and order it to be decided by court of competent civil jurisdiction, if so, desired by the complainant. We leave the parties to bear their own costs. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be completed and consigned to record.



Announced T.N. Vaidya, President

Dated 25.3.2009.