Back
H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SHIMLA
Inder Singh Mehta, President and R.K. Verma, Member
United India Insurance
Company Ltd. and Anr. – Appellants
versus
Neeraj Sharma and Ors. Respondents
First Appeal Nos.280 and 330 of 2018
Decided on 5.9.2023
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 15[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 41] – Insurance – Damage to car in accident – Insurance claim rejected on the ground that vehicle was not having valid registration number on the date of accident – Total cost of repair is higher than 75% of insured declared value (IDV) and it is a case of total loss – As such, complainant is entitled to insured declared value (IDV) of vehicle minus salvage value – Vehicle in question is in possession of dealer – Appellant/insurance company while issuing insurance policy and appellant/dealer while issuing temporary registration certificate were in common knowledge of its effect – As such, both of them are jointly and severally liable to indemnify loss occurred to complainant – Impugned order modified to the extent that complainant is entitled to IDV minus salvage value alongwith interest as per impugned order – Remaining portion of impugned order remains upheld. (Paras 26, 27, 28 and 29)
Result: Appeals dismissed.
ORDER
Inder Singh Mehta, President—The instant appeals are arising out of the common order dated 04.09.2018 passed by the District Commission, Kangra, H.P. in consumer complaint No.32/2018 titled Mrs. Neeraj Sharma Vs. M/s Sant Auto Zone Private Limited & Ors.
Brief facts of the Case:
2. Briefly, case of the complainant is that complainant purchased a vehicle Mahindra KUV 1000 NXT K2 from opposite party No.1/dealer on 19.10.2017. The vehicle was financed from opposite party No.4/Financier. Temporary certificate of Registration (HP-68/Temp 5658), dated 19.10.2017 was issued by authorized signatory of opposite party No.1/dealer, which was valid for 30 days i.e. till 18.11.2017. After a week, the complainant found some problem in the vehicle and vehicle was taken to agency. The opposite party No.1/dealer instead of solving the problem, exchanged the said vehicle with a new one on 26.10.2017. The opposite party No.1/dealer while exchanging the aforesaid vehicle issued temporary registration certificate in which in the column of engine and chassis number fluid was used. The sale certificate dated 19.10.2017 was also issued. The opposite party No.1/dealer with malafide intention issued all the documents of newly exchanged vehicle with back date i.e. 19.10.2017. The complainant had purchased insurance policy of the vehicle from opposite party No.2 through opposite party No.3 on 19.10.2017. The opposite party No.2/Insurance company also issued new certificate of insurance bearing No.2215003117P110319114 depicting the effective date of commencement of insurance from 19.10.2017, whereas, policy was issued on 27.10.2017. Thereafter, complainant applied for permanent registration number of the vehicle before Registering and Licensing Authority on 13.11.2017. Objection regarding applying of fluid on engine number and chassis number was raised by the concerned authority and the file was returned back on 18.11.2017. Said fact was brought to the notice of authorized person of opposite party No.1/dealer. Upon getting information, Mr. Kartar Singh, Manager of opposite party No.1/dealer told that objection raised by the authority will be removed and complainant was asked to visit the office. Unfortunately, during that period vehicle in question met with an accident at Bagli Road and there was total loss to the vehicle in the accident. Rapat was also lodged in Police Station Gaggal on 21.11.2017. Intimation of accident was also given to opposite parties No.1 and 2. A surveyor was appointed by the opposite party No.2/Insurance company, who projected estimate loss to the tune of Rs.3,70,000/- The claim was preferred before opposite party No.2/Insurance company, but the same was rejected vide letter dated 22.01.2018 on the ground that vehicle was not having valid registration number on the date of accident. Hence, the present complaint.
3. The complaint was opposed by the opposite parties by filing their separate replies.
4. The opposite party No.1/dealer did not deny that complainant purchased the vehicle on 19.10.2017 and the same was exchanged with new vehicle on 26.10.2017. Necessary correction in chassis number and engine number was made by opposite party No.1/dealer in the temporary certificate of registration which was issued on 19.10.2017. Since the vehicle was sold to complainant on 19.10.2017 and it was only exchanged with second vehicle on 26.10.2017, as such the papers were prepared accordingly. The validity of the insurance policy was rightly from 19.10.2017 to mid night of 18.10.2018. On receipt of information regarding accident, the surveyor estimated loss to the vehicle to the tune of Rs.3,70,000/-. There was no deficiency in service on behalf of opposite party No.1/Dealer. A prayer for dismissal of the complaint is made.
5. The opposite party No.2/United India Insurance Company Ltd. submitted that opposite parties No.1 and 3 are responsible for their act and conduct as they exercised the authority not vested in them. If they have ma
Damage to car in accident—Where total cost of repair is higher than 75% of insured declared value (IDV) it is a case of total loss.
(1) Registered Owner - The complainant has rightly been held entitled to the claim, being the registered owner of the vehicle as the Registration Certificate and Insurance Policy were still in his na....
Damaged Vehicle - Question of awarding the total IDV amount cannot be and should not be allowed as the value of the damaged vehicle.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
