Haryana

Gurgaon

cc/459/2012

Hoshiar Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. M/s Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

19 May 2016

ORDER

                                    DISTRICT   CONSUMER   DISPUTES   REDRESSAL FORUM,GURGAON-122001

                                                                                                            Consumer Complaint No: 459 of 2012                                                                                                                       Date of Institution: 22.10.2012/21.11.2012                                                                                                                                         Date of Decision: 19.05.2016

Hoshiar Singh son of Shri Girdhari Lal r/o Village Baslambi, Tehsil Farrukhnagar, District Gurgaon.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                        ……Complainant.

                                                Versus

M/s Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. EC Shop No.6, Lal Singh Market, Opp. Power House, Manesar, District Gurgaon-122001 through its Manager.

 

M/s Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, DO-2, Gurgaon, Payal Cinema Commercial Complex, Sector-14, Delhi Road, Gurgaon through its Manager.

 

                                                                                              ..Opposite party

                                                                                               

Complaint under Sections 12 & 14 of Consumer Protection Act,1986                                                                 

 

BEFORE:     SHRI SUBHASH GOYAL, PRESIDENT

SMT JYOTI SIWACH, MEMBER

                   SH.SURENDER SINGH BALYAN, MEMBER.

 

Present:        Shri Satyavir Sharma, Adv for the complainant.

                    Shri Amit Munjal, Adv for OP-1

                    OP-2 exparte

 

ORDER       SUBHASH GOYAL, PRESIDENT.

The case of the complainant, in brief, is that he got his vehicle Mahindra Max bearing Regd. No. HR-55-E-0913 insured with the OP vide Policy No.215390/31/2012/483 which was valid from 29.05.2011 to 28.05.2012 with IDV of Rs.2,43,000/-. However, the above said vehicle was stolen during the intervening night of 21/22.11.2011 and in this regard FIR No.267 dated 22.11.2011 was registered with Police Station, Sadar, Pataudi. Though the vehicle was  under the process of sale to one Mr. Harbans s/o Shri Ishwar Singh but the vehicle was not got registered in the name of said Harbans due to want of some payment. The complainant submitted the claim with the OP but it was repudiated by the OP on the ground that the complainant was having no insurable interest at the time of theft as he has sold the vehicle to one Mr. Harbans. Thus, the repudiation of the claim tantamounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The complainant prayed that the opposite party be directed to reimburse the claim of the complainant with interest. He also sought compensation of Rs.20,000/-.

2                 The complainant in support of his claim has filed his affidavit, affidavit given by him regarding transfer, copy of FIR and the insurance policy.

3                 OP in its written reply has alleged that the claim of the complainant has rightly been repudiated by the OP vide letter dated 31.03.2012 as the complainant was having no insurable interest in the vehicle as he has already sold the same to one Mr. Harbans and thus, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

4                 We have heard the parties and have perused the record available on file.

5                 Therefore, from the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence on the file and the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties, it emerges that the complainant has filed the present complaint against the OPs alleging deficiency in service on their part on the ground that the complainant  got his registered vehicle in question insured with the OP vide policy No.215390/31/2012/483 which was effective from 29.05.2011 to 28.05.2012 with IDV of Rs.2,43,000/-. However, during the subsistence of the insurance policy the vehicle was stolen during the intervening night of  21/22.11.2011 and in this regard FIR No.267 dated 22.11.2011 was registered by Sadar Police Station, Pataudi. The complainant submitted the claim with the OP but the same was repudiated wrongly and illegally which tantamounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

6                 However, as per the contention of the OP the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated because at the time of theft he was having no insurable interest in the vehicle as he has already sold the vehicle to one Mr. Harbans and thus, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

7                 Therefore, after going through the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence placed on file it is evident that the vehicle in question was insured with the OPs. The OPs have also not disputed the theft of the vehicle.

8                 The argument on behalf of the OP that the complainant was not having any insurable interest in the vehicle as he had sold the vehicle to one Mr. Harbans and thus, the claim has rightly been repudiated is not sustainable in the eye of law because there is nothing on the file except the affidavit of Hoshiar Singh complainant vide which he agreed to sold the vehicle to Harbans. The opposite parties have not produced any registration certificate in order to show that the complainant was no longer registered owner of the said vehicle. After going through the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence placed on file it is evident that the complaint has been filed by complainant Hoshiar Singh who is registered owner as well as having insurable interest in the vehicle being insured and the said vehicle has been insured with OP-1 and thus, the complainant is registered owner as well as insured of the said vehicle. Therefore, we are inclined to hold that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in repudiating the claim of the complainant.

9                 Therefore, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to pay the insured sum as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy along with interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 22.10.2012 till realization. The complainant is also entitled to compensation for harassment and mental agony as well as litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.10,000/-. The OPs shall make the compliance of the order within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The parties be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the records after due compliance.

 

Announced                                                                                                       (Subhash Goyal)

19.05.2016                                                                                                             President,

                                                                                                                      District Consumer Disputes

                                                                                                                     Redressal Forum, Gurgaon

 

(Jyoti Siwach)        (Surender Singh Balyan)

Member                 Member