Haryana

Sonipat

93/2012

SATISH KUMAR S/O SUKHBIR SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. THE NEW INDIA INSURANCE CO. ,2. SURESH KUMAR S/O CHATTAR SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

ANIL KUMAR

28 Jan 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SONEPAT.

                                                      

                                    Complaint No.93 of 2012

                                    Instituted on:1.3.2012

                                    Date of order:15.04.2015

 

Satish Kumar son of Sukhbir Singh, resident of village Chhinoli, distt. Sonepat.

 

     …….Complainant

 

                   VERSUS

 

1.The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Rohtak road, near Truck Union, Gohana, distt. Sonepat through its Branch Manager.

2.Suresh Kumar son of Chatter Singh, resident of village Giwana, distt. Rohtak.

    ……Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. Sanjay Ahlawat, Adv. for complainant.

           Sh. ML Sehgal, Adv. for respondent no.1.

           Sh. Virender Nain, Adv.for respondent no.2.

 

BEFORE-   Nagender Singh, President.

          Smt. Prabha Wati, Member.

          D.V. Rathi, Member.

 

O R D E R

 

        Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that he had purchased a truck bearing no.HR46C/6171 from respondent no.2 and the same was transferred in the name of the complainant and was insured with respondent no.1 for the period 20.10.2005 to 19.10.2006. After purchase and getting transfer the said truck in his own name by the complainant, he immediately informed the respondent no.1 for transfer of insurance policy and submitted all the required documents for the said purpose.  But during this period, the truck of the complainant was stolen by some unknown persons during the intervening night of 23.7.2006 and FIR no.783 dated 6.8.2006 was lodged with PS Nangloi, Delhi.  The complainant after the theft immediately informed the respondent no.1 and submitted his claim alongwith required documents including untraced report, but till date, the respondent no.1 has not paid the claim amount to the complainant and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.1.  So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.       The respondent no.1 and 2 have appeared through their respective counsel and has filed their written statement separately.

         The respondent no.1 in its written statement has submitted that the truck bearing no.HR46C/6171 alleged to have stolen on 23.7.2006 and FIR was lodged on 6.8.2006 and there is a delay of about 14 days in lodging the FIR.  The complainant Satish Kumar is not the insured of the respondent no.1 since according to alleged complaint, the name of the complainant was not transferred by respondent no.1 in the insurance police since the requisite fee of transfer of the name of the insured has not been paid by the complainant. There is no contract of insurance between the complainant and respondent no.1 regarding the theft as per the insurance policy.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.1 and thus, the complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

         The respondent no.2 in his written statement has submitted that he has sold his truck no.HR46C/6171 to the complainant and the same was transferred in the name of the complainant.

3.       We have heard both the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also gone through the entire case file very carefully.

4.       Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.1 has argued that the truck bearing no.HR46C/6171 alleged to have stolen on 23.7.2006 and FIR was lodged on 6.8.2006 and there is a delay of about 14 days in lodging the FIR.  The complainant Satish Kumar is not the insured of the respondent no.1 since according to alleged complaint, the name of the complainant was not transferred by respondent no.1 in the insurance police since the requisite fee of transfer of the name of the insured has not been paid by the complainant. There is no contract of insurance between the complainant and respondent no.1 regarding the theft as per the insurance policy. The present complaint is time barred and thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.1.

         Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.2 has submitted that the respondent no.2 has sold his truck no.HR46C/6171 to the complainant and the same was transferred in the name of the complainant.

         The bare perusal of the documents placed on record itself shows that the RC of the vehicle was transferred in the name of the complainant on 21.7.2006 and it was Saturday & Sunday respectively on 22.7.2006 and 23.7.2006.  As per terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the insurance policy should have been transferred from the previous owner to the new owner within 15 days.  So, the plea of the respondent no.1 that the complainant has no insurable interest in the vehicle in question is not tenable in the eyes of law.

         We have perused the document Ex.C2 i.e. the application moved by one Sumer Singh before the Chowki Incharge, Tikri Border, Delhi.  In this application, Sumer Singh son of Ram Mehar has submitted that after purchasing the truck no.HR46C/6171 from Suresh Kumar, he has got registered the same in the name of his son-in-law namely Satish.  It has also been mentioned in this application that the insurance policy was to be transferred on 24.7.2006 and due to this, the vehicle was not loaded.  Sumer Singh has also mentioned that about 10 pm after locking the vehicle, he went to sleep in the company office and in the next morning, when he got up, he found the vehicle missing.  The bare perusal of this application itself shows that Sumer Singh has given the written intimation to the Chowki Incharge, Tikri Border, Delhi on 24.7.2006 and this application is duly signed, stamped and even the Bedge number of the HC Balwan Singh is mentioned in this application.  In our view, the prime duty of Sumer Singh was only to inform the police officials, which he did and lodging of the FIR was not in the hands of Sumer Singh son of Ram Mehar Singh.  So, in our view, it cannot be said that there is any kind of delay on the part of the complainant.  The case law i.e. Trilochan Jane Vs. New India Ass. Co. Ltd. is not applicable to the case in hand, because the above said law is on different footings.

         The respondent no.1 has filed only the written statement and affidavit and has not produced any document in support of their case regarding settlement of the claim and there is no ground on the part of the insurance company that the insurance company was intimated after a delay.  So, it is held that there is deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.1 insurance company and the respondent no.1 is definitely liable to compensate the loss to the complainant. Accordingly, we hereby direct the respondent no.1 insurance company to make the payment of Rs.7 lacs (Rs.seven lacs) to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 09% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint till realization.  The present complaint, thus, stands allowed qua respondent no.1 as we find no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.2.

         Certified copies of order be provided to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

(Prabha Devi-Member)    (D.V.Rathi)         (Nagender Singh-President)

DCDRF, Sonepat.      DCDRF, Sonepat.      DCDRF Sonepat.

 

Announced 15.04.2015