| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BATHINDA C.C. No. 07 of 08-01-2019 Decided on : 24-01-2023 Santokh Singh aged about 37 years, S/o Sh. Gurpartap Singh, R/o Vill. Phulewala, Tehsil Phul, Distt. Bathinda. ........Complainant Versus AVC Motors, Mansa Road, Bathinda through its Proprietor/Partner/ Authorized Signatory. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, The Mall, Bathinda through its Senior Divisional Manager.
.......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 QUORUM Sh. Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President Sh. Shivdev Singh, Member Present For the complainant : Sh. Jeevanjot Singh,Advocate. For opposite parties : Sh. Vikas Gupta, for opposite party No.1 : Sh. Sundar Gupta,for opposite party No.2 O R D E R Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President The complainant Santokh Singh (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Now C.P. Act, 2019, here-in after referred to as 'Act') before this Forum (Now Commission) against AVC Motors and another (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties). Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that he purchased Mahindra Scorpio bearing Engine No. WRH4L14595 and Chasis No. H2L49980 on 30.12.2017 from opposite party No.1 after taking loan from the HDFC Bank Ltd., Bathinda. Delivery of the said vehicle was given on 31.12.2017 vide delivery Challan No. 8617. At the time of purchase, the opposite party No.1 also got the said vehicle insured on 30.12.2017 with opposite party No.2 vide Insurance Cover Note No.529034 w.e.f. 30.12.2017 to 29.12.2018 for the IDV of Rs. Rs.14,81,385.00. for which the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.48,348.00 as premium with opposite party No. 2. It is alleged that opposite party No.1 provided Provisional Registration certificate to the complainant bearing Provisional Registration mark No.PB-40A 0214 and Registration No. PB-03AH(T) 9686 and assured the complainant to get the vehicle in question registered in the name of the complainant within the period of 30 to 45 days from the date of the purchase of the said vehicle for which the opposite party no.1 charged requisite registration charges and other misc. expenses from the complainant on 30.12.2017 itself. It is also alleged that after purchase of the said vehicle, the same met with an accident on 10.1.2018 when the complainant was returning back from Raikot towards Rampura Phul as a stray came in front of the said vehicle as a result of which, the vehicle got damaged from the front right side and rear right side. Intimation of the loss was given by complainant to the opposite parties on 11.1.2018. The opposite party No.2 appointed Sh. Suresh Vanshist, Surveyor and Loss Asssessor to assess the loss who conducted survey of the vehicle and charged Rs.3700/- from the complainant and thereafter the complainant parked the said vehicle in Happy Motor Workshop, Ludhiana for repair of the vehicle. The complainant purchased the parts of Rs.33,256/- from United Automobiles, Bharat Nagar Chowk, Ludhiana vide invoice No.31.91 dated 15.1.2018 and got the said vehicle repaired and also paid Rs.22,000/- as labour and charges of Denting & Painting etc. to Happy Motor workshop vide bill no.751 dated 16.1.2018. It is alleged that complainant lodged insurance claim with the opposite party No.2 and requested to pay the aforesaid amount of approx. Rs.60,000/- spent by the complainant but opposite party No. 2 asked the complainant to furnish the copy of the registration certificate of the vehicle in question and the claim of the complainant will be processed only after submission of the copy of the registration certificate. The complainant then approached the opposite party No.1 to provide original RC of the vehicle, but opposite party No.1 proclaimed that it will take time of 30 to 45 days to get original RC of the vehicle but the opposite party no.1 failed to provide the original Registration Certificate to the complainant even upto 15.2.2018 rather the certificate of Provisional Registration which was initially valid upto 15.2.2018 was again issued on 16.2.2018 which was valid w.e.f. 16.2.2018 to 15.3.2018. The complainant was assured by opposite party No.1 to provide the registration certificate upto 15.3.2018 positively but certificate of provisional registration was further extended by the opposite party No.1 upto 15.10.2018. The opposite party No.1 failed to provide the original RC to complainant without assigning any cogent reasoning rather kept on putting the matter off under one or the other false pretext and has failed to provide the same to the complainant till date although a period of one year has already lapsed since the date of purchase of the said vehicle by the complainant. It is further alleged that on one hand, the opposite party No.1 has failed to provide the original RC of the vehicle till date and on the other hand, opposite party No.2 is not paying the amount of insurance claim to the complainant although the copy of the RC is not at all required to honour the claim of the complainant as the complainant has already furnished the copies of the bills regarding the repair of the car in question, copy of the bills regarding the purchase of the vehicle and the copy of insurance cover note to opposite party No.2. It is also alleged that due to the aforesaid act of the opposite parties, the complainant is suffering from grave mental tension, agony, botheration, harassment, humiliation and is deprived of plying the said vehicle in the absence of the original RC, for which he claims compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/-. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has prayed for directions to opposite party No. 1 to provide original registration certificate of the vehicle in question in the name of the complainant within 15 days; opposite party No. 2 to pay claim amount of Approx. Rs.60,000/- with interest @ 12% p.a. w.e.f. 15.1.2018 till payment. Both the opposite parties may also be directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- besides costs of the present complaint to the tune of Rs.11,000/-. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared through their respective counsel and contested the complaint by filing separate written statements. The opposite party No. 1 in its written version took legal objections that complainant has concealed material facts and documents from this Commission as well as the opposite parties. It has been pleaded that opposite party No.1 has already applied the Registration Certificate of the vehicle on dated 14.2.2018 before Transport Department on Rampura Phul, SDM Punjab and the office of Transport Dept. Phull issued receipt dated 14.2.2018. The delay, if any, is on the part of Transport Department, Rampura Phul, SDM Punjab and as and when the Transport Department, Rampura Phul, SDM Punjab will issue the Registration certificate, the same will be handed over to the complainant. Further legal objections are that mix question of intricate law and facts are involved in the complainant which require detailed, comprehensive, elaborate oral and documentary evidence, which is not permissible under the present summary proceedings before this Commssion rather to be decided by the competent Civil Court. That the present complaint has been filed by the complainant only to injure the goodwill and repudiation of opposite parties. Even otherwise the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious to the knowledge of the complainant. That there is no deficiency of service and complaint is not maintainable. The complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint. This Commission has got no jurisdiction and that the complainant is not consumer. The complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious to the knowledge of the complainant. The complaint is not properly verified according to order 6 rule 15 CPC nor supported with detailed affidavit of the complainant. The claim made in the complainant is false, frivolous and vexatious, inflated, excessive and exorbitant and has been filed to harass the answering opposite party and to recover the false claim under the grab the present complainant. The complainant has filed one complaint, whereas he is claiming two relief one of registration certificate and other claim is damage of the vehicle, whereas he should have filed two complaints separately one for Registration Certificate and other for accidental claim. Hence, the complainant is liable to be dismissed. On merits, the opposite party No.1 admitted that it provided provisional Registration Certificate to the complainant bearing No. PB-40-A-0214 and registration No. PB-03-AH-(T)9686. The opposite party No.1 has already applied Registration Certificate of the vehicle on 14-2-2018 and paid Rs.83,025/- to the Transport Department, Rampura Phul, SDM Punjab and receipt dated 14-2-2018 was issued by Transport Department. Delay, if any is on the part of Transport Department and as such when Transport Dept. will issue the certificate, the same will be handed over the complainant. The opposite party admitted that it extended the provisional registration upto 15-10-2018. All other averments of opposite party No.1 has been denied by complainant. Opposite party No.2 in its separate written reply raised legal objections that complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. HDFC Bank Ltd., Bathinda, from-where the insured Mahindra Scorpio is financed and is hypothecated, has not been impleaded as party. The complainant has violated the terms of conditions of insurance policy as well as provisions of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and its rules. Section 39 of Motor Vehicle Act reads as under:- "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 displayed in the prescribed manner" and as per provision of Section 43(2) of. Motor Vehicle Act, temporary registration is only valid for a period not exceeding one month, and shall not be renewable. Complainant got his aforesaid New Mahindra Scorpio insured from answering respondent vide policy No.233200/31/2018/4666 effective from 30.12.2017 to mid night of 29.12.2018. It has been pleaded that aforesaid insured vehicle met with an accident on 10.01.2018 and after receipt of intimation regarding the alleged accident Er Suresh Vashishat & Company Surveyor and Loss Assessor was deputed to assess the loss to the insured vehicle, who inspected the aforesaid vehicle minutely and submitted his report dated 31.05.2018, whereby he assessed the loss to the insured vehicle to the tune of Rs.50,500/- subject to excess clause and subject to terms and conditions of insurance policy but since insured vehicle was not having permanent registration number as per provisions of Section 39 of Motor Vehicle Act and temporary registration number expired within one month as per Section 43(2) of Motor Vehicle Act and complainant has failed to supply the aforesaid permanent registration certificate till today, in spite of many registered letters and reminders, so claim of the complainant has not been settled till today and as such claim of the complainant is still premature. Moreover, insured has settlement his claim subject to excess clause and terms and conditions of insurance policy. The other legal objectons are that complainant has no locus- standi or cause of action to file the present complaint. The amount of compensation claimed is highly excessive and exorbitant one. The present complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious to the knowledge of the complainant, as such the present complaint is liable to be dismissed with special costs. On merits, the opposite party No.2 has pleaded that complainant has failed to submit that permanent registration certificate of the insured vehicle inspite of repeated requests and reminders due to which claim of the complainant could not be finalize. The opposite party No.2 is not liable if opposite party No.1 has failed to deliver registration certificate of the insured vehicle to the complainant. After controverting all other averments of the complainant, opposite party No.2 prayed of dismissal of complaint. In support of his complaint, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit dated 4.1.2019 (Ex. C-1) and other documents (Ex. C-2 to Ex. C-8). In order to rebut the evidence of complainant, the opposite party No.1 has tendered into evidence photocopy of payment receipt (Ex.OP-1/1) and affidavit dated 14.3.2019 of Sh. Naresh Monga. The opposite party No.2 has tendered into evidence affidavits of Sh. Ashwani Kumar and Sh. Suresh Vashisht both dated 27-2-2019 (Ex.OP-2/1 and Ex.OP-2/2) and other documents (Ex.OP-2/3 to Ex.OP-2/17). The learned counsel for the parties reiterated their stand as taken in their respective pleadings. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. In the case in hand, there is no dispute regarding purchase of vehicle in qustion and its insurance. There is also no dispute between the parties regarding accident of vehicle, survey of accidental vehicle and assessment of insurance claim. The opposite party No. 1 handed over original registration certificate of vehicle in question to complainant and complainant suffered statement on 25-8-2022 before this Commission, in this regard. Now the controversy is regarding delay in handing over the original registration certificate of vehicle in question by opposite party No. 1 to complainant and payment of insurance claim to complainant by opposite party No. 2. The opposite party No. 1 has failed to convince this Commission by placing any cogent and conving evidence for delay which took part on the part of opposite party No. 1 in applying Registration Certificate with registring authority. Therefore, there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No. 1 in late applying of Registration Certificate and in not making proper follow-up and providing registration certificate timely to complainant. As per version of opposite party No. 2, since complainant has failed to submit permanent registration certificate of the insured vehicle inspite of repeated requests and reminders, his claim could not be finalize. In this regard, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 relied upon 2021(4) RCR(Civil) 478 case titled United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Sushil Kumar Godara (SC). A perusal of aforesaid citation United Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Sushil Kumar Godara (supra) reveals that the facts of that case are totally different than that of case in hand. In that case, registration of the vehicle expired on the date of loss and there was nothing on record to suggest that respondent/insured had applied for registration or that he was awaiting registration whereas in the case in hand, provisional registration certificate (Ex.C-7) was there and it was extended upto 15-10-2018 as is evident from Ex. C-8 and as per Receipt for Rs. 83,025/- (Ex. OP-1/1) Permanant Registration of the vehicle had also applied. Therefore, on the date of loss i.e. 10-01-2018, vehicle in question was already having provisional Registration Certificate. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No. 2 in not paying genuine claim of the complainant without any valid reason. Ex. OP-2/9 is the Motor Final Survey Report of M/s. Suresh Vashist & Company, which shows that an amount of Rs. 50,500/- has been assessed as liability under the policy/loss to vehicle in question by the surveyor. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to the insurance loss/amount as assessed by surveyor. In addition to said amount, as per receipt (Ex. C-4) placed on file by complainant, an amount of Rs. 3700/- has been paid by him to surveyor as survey fee. Further perusal of file reveals that opposite party No.2 tendered in evidence Discharge Voucher (Ex.OP-2/11), Acceptance voucher of amount Rs.50,500/- (Ex.OP-1/12) and cancelled cheque (Ex.OP-1/14) from complainant but surprisingly did not make payment of claim of complainant. Therefore, complainant is also entitled to interest on aforesaid claim amount w.e.f. 11-4-2018 (after three months processing period from the date of loss). In view of what has been discussed above, this complaint is partly allowed with Rs. 10,000/- as cost and compensation against both the opposite parties. The opposite party No. 2 is further directed to pay to complainant an amount of Rs. 54,200/- (Rs.50,500/- assessed claim amount + Rs.3700/- survey fee) with interest @ 6% p.a. w.e.f. 11-4-2018 till realization. The compliance of this order be made by opposite parties within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to covid pandemic and heavy pendency of cases. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room.
Announced : 24-01-2023 (Kanwar Sandeep Singh) President Member (Shivdev Singh) | |
