STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA
Date of Institution: 27.02.2018
Date of final hearing: 12.05.2023
Date of pronouncement: 10.07.2023
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 102 OF 2018
IN THE MATTER OF: -
Hazara Builders Group, having its office at 129, Allenby Lines, Ambala, Haryana-133 001 through its partners Sh. Vishal Joli and Sh. Uday Veer Chaudhary …..Complainant
Versus
HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Limited having its office at Unit No. 502, 504, 506, 5th Floor, Mahatta Tower, B-1 Block, Community Centre, Janak Puri, New Delhi-110058.
Also At:
2nd Floor, SCO No. 237, Sector-12, Kaithal, Haryana-132001.
…..Opposite Party
CORAM: Naresh Katyal, Judicial Member
Argued by:- Sh. Hoshiar Chand, counsel for complainant.
Sh. Vishal Aggarwal, counsel for opposite party.
ORDER
NARESH KATYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
Facts in complaint are: complainant purchased machine of name ‘Argo 4000 Self Loading Concrete Mixture’. Its engine No. is 4H33061620256 and chassis No. is KRGO42016043579. It was purchased from Ajax Fiori Engineering (India) Pvt. Ltd. on 30.04.2016 for Rs.37,40,850/- as per invoice Annexure C-1 dated 30.04.2016. It was delivered to complainant at Ambala along with documents like temporary certificate of registration, sale certificate initial certificate of road worthiness. It was insured with opposite party through misc. and special type of vehicles package policy (Annexure C-5) from 29.04.2016 to 28.04.2017. Insurance declared value was assessed to be Rs.35,53,807/-. Complainant paid premium of Rs.52,008/-. On 16.02.2017, vehicle fell into gorge of 300 meter, when its driver was reversing it. Driver died at spot and vehicle was totally damaged. Intimation of accident was given to nearby police station and FIR No. 34 dated 16.02.2017 (Annexure C-6) was lodged by partner of the firm. Complainant lodged claim with OP on 17.02.2017 vide claim No. C230016165227, Policy No. 2316201409675500000. OP wrote letter Annexure C-7 dated 22.02.2017 to complainant intimating that: claim is repudiated as vehicle was not registered. It is pleaded that vehicle has also passed requisite fitness from registering authority and documents in this regard are Annexure C-8. It is pleaded that OP are deficient in providing service to complainant and repudiated the claim of complainant on flimsy grounds and its act amounts to unfair trade practice. On these pleas, complaint has been filed for issuance of direction to OP to give insurance claim of Rs.35,53,807/- with interest @18% from the date of lodging of claim till realization; complainant be paid compensation for mental agony and harassment amounting to Rs.5,00,000/- and also be compensated for litigation expenses amounting to Rs.1,00,000/-. Text of complaint is supported by affidavit.
2. OP raised contest. In defence so entered; in preliminary objections thereof, it is asserted that; complainant has concealed material facts and documents which are necessary for adjudication of controversy and complaint is based upon interpretation of insurance policy which has been made to suit the need and convenience of complainant. It is admitted that complainant took insurance policy for Argo 4000 Self Loading Concrete mixture for IDV of Rs.35,53,807/- and policy was valid from 29.04.2016 to 28.04.2017. Since vehicle was new, so only temporary registration No. was issued which was valid for 30 days from date of issuance up to 03.06.2016 only. It is incumbent upon insured to get the vehicle registered, before expiry of temporary number and to inform insurance company. Complainant did not get the vehicle registered within stipulated period of 30 days. It was thereafter in February-2017, i.e. almost after 10 months, insurer was informed that the vehicle in question had fallen in gorge while it was being reversed and it was totally damaged. Insurer immediately appointed licenced surveyor to confirm that vehicle was not registered on alleged date of accident (16.02.2017). Accordingly, claim was repudiated, being violation of Section 39 of Motor Vehicle Act vide repudiation letter Annexure R-2. It is pleaded that: Act in itself stipulates that no person shall drive the vehicle, unless same is duly registered. It is pleaded that even as per registration certificate annexed with complaint, it is clear that same was valid from 03.03.2017 meaning thereby vehicle was got registered after accident. There is no lapse on the part of insurer. On these pleas, dismissal of complaint has been prayed. Text of written version is also supported with affidavit.
3. Parties to this lis, led their respective evidence. On behalf of complainant; Vishal Joli tendered his affidavit Ex.CW-1/A towards his affirmative statement on oath. Complainant placed reliance upon documents Ex.C-1 (Tax Invoice), Ex.C2 (temporary registration certificate), Ex.C-3 (Sale certificate), Ex.C-4 (Road worthiness certificate), Ex.C-5 (Insurance Policy), Ex.C-6 (FIR dated 16.02.2017), Ex.C-7 (repudiation letter dated 22.02.2017), Ex.C-8 (certificate of registration issued by RTA Ambala). Complainant closed evidence on 12.03.2019. On behalf of OP; affidavit Ex.OPW-1/A of Shweta Pokhriyal has been placed on record towards her affirmative statement on oath. OP placed reliance on documents Ex.OP-1 (insurance policy), Ex.OP-2 (standard form for commercial vehicle package policy). OP closed its evidence on 25.11.2019.
4. Arguments in the complaint were heard on 12.05.2023. On behalf of complainant it has been urged that: once, the vehicle had met with an accident during the currency of insurance period, then insurer cannot the repudiate the claim merely on the basis that on the date of accident, ill fated vehicle did not carry permanent registration number. It is urged that having received the premium amounting to Rs.52,008/-; the insurer cannot wriggle out from its ensuing liability to indemnify the insured.
5. On behalf of insurer, it is urged that once the vehicle was not registered with registering authority on the day of accident and validity period of one month meant for holding temporary registration number was already over on the day of accident (16.02.2017), then insurer has no subsisting liability to indemnify the insured.
6. On imparting critical analysis to pleadings of both parties, along with evidence (oral as well as documentary) brought on record by both the parties and on the basis of submissions raised by learned counsels; it is admitted that Argo 4000 Self Loading Concrete Mixture was insured with OP and currency period of insurance was from 29.04.2016 to 28.04.2017. There is also no denial that premium of Rs.52,008/- was paid in relation to this policy. There is no dispute that vehicle met with accident on 16.02.2017. Not only FIR was lodged promptly with respect to this accident, but even insurer was informed about the accident, in no loss of time. Temporary registration of the vehicle is Ex.C-2. It has currency period from 05.05.2016 to 03.06.2016.
7. No overact has been performed by complainant to get the vehicle registered permanently with registering authority after expiry of temporary registration number. The complaint and evidence led by complainant does not reflect any efforts being made by complainant, in that arena. Permanent registration certificate is Ex.C-8 in which insured name is M/s Hazara Builder Group and registration certificate is valid from 03.03.2017. Vehicle has been registered with RTA, Ambala and its permanent Registration HR 37D-8342. Vehicle met with accident on 16.02.2017 and it is thus established that on the day of accident vehicle did not held permanent registration certificate. Insurer has repudiated the claim vide letter Ex.C-7 dated 22.02.2017 by relying upon Section 39 of Motor Vehicle Act and asserting that: “till the vehicle receives certification of registration from competent authority it is not legally useable on roads. This use of vehicle was in clear violation of statutory requirement of registration of vehicle in violation of law itself will take it beyond the protection of policy”. Section 39 of Motor Vehicle Act reads as under:-
“39. Necessity for registration.—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: Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a motor vehicle in possession of a dealer subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government.”
The phraseology of above provision makes it mandatory for the person, not to drive the vehicle and for the owner not to cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place, unless vehicle is registered. Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled as “Narender Singh versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and others” AIR 2014 SC 3761 has held that using of vehicle on public road without any registration is not only an offence, but also fundamental breach of policy contract. No compensation can be granted for unregistered vehicle met in an accident. In that case, the Hon’ble Apex Court also interpreted Section 39 along with Section 43 and 66 of Motor Vehicle Act. In cited case, temporary registration granted in respect of vehicle in question had expired on 11.01.2006 and accident took place on 02.02.2006 when vehicle was without any registration. There was no evidence by claimant to show that before or after 11.01.2006, when period of temporary registration expired; claimant, owner of vehicle has either applied for permanent registration as contemplated under Section 39 of the Act or made any application for extension of period as temporary registration on ground of some special reason. Eventually, the Hon’ble Apex Court has upheld the dismissal of the complaint. This view of Hon’ble Apex court has further been relied upon by Hon’ble National Consumer Commission in case titled as “Classic Bakery versus Tata AIG Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd.” First Appeal No. 362 of 2015 decided on 26.04.2019. Hence, legal issue so arisen in case in hand, is no more res-integra.
8. In the present case also there is no evidence, worth the name led by complainant to show that after expiry of temporary registration number; either there was any application moved for getting the vehicle permanently registered, or any application was made for extending the period of temporary registration number, on any special reasons. If complainant had adopted an attitude of total silence in this regard, till the vehicle met with unfortunate accident on 16.02.2017 and complainant got the vehicle registered permanently with registering authority Ambala after date of accident and permanent registration certificate, (Ex. C-8) with registration No. HR 37D-8342 is effective from 03.03.2017, then complainant cannot urge any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OP/insurer. The inept attitude of complainant is ex-facie proved and claim in furtherance to insurance policy Ex.C-5/Ex.OP-1 has been rightly repudiated by insurer/OP through its letter dated 22.02.2017 (Ex.C-7) by invoking Section 39 of Motor Vehicle Act. Ratio of law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in Narender Singh’s case (supra) and by Hon’ble National Consumer Commission in Classic Bakery’s case (supra) is fully applicable to the facts and evidence of present case.
9. In view of above, this complaint does not carry any substance and merits. Being devoid of merits it is hereby dismissed.
10. Application(s) pending, if any stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
11. Copy of this judgment be provided to parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.
12. File be consigned to record room.
Date of pronouncement: 10th July, 2023
Naresh Katyal
Judicial Member
Addl. Bench-II
