Haryana

StateCommission

A/783/2014

The New India Assurance Company Limited - Complainant(s)

Versus

Anil Kumar Singla - Opp.Party(s)

28 Oct 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :    783 of 2014

Date of Institution:    05.09.2014

Date of Decision :     28.10.2016

 

The New India Assurance Company Limited, Branch Office, near S.D. College, G.T. Road, Panipat-132103 through its Manager Sh. A.L. Madaan C/o Regional Office, SCO No.36-37, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh.

                                      Appellant-Opposite Party

Versus

 

Anil Kumar Singla, Advocate s/o Sh. Bhagat Ram, Resident of House No.1864, Sector 12, HUDA, Panipat.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                                                                                                         

Present:               Shri Navin Kapur, Advocate for appellant.

                             Shri Gauravdeep Goel, Advocate for respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

          The New India Assurance Company Limited (for short ‘the Insurance Company’)-Opposite Party is in appeal against the order dated 16^th July, 2014 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panipat (for short ‘the District Forum’) whereby complaint was allowed and the Insurance Company was directed as under:-

“..We hereby allow the present complaint with a direction to opposite party to pay Rs.1,10,000/- to the complainant with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till realization. Cost of litigation is quantified of Rs.2200/- is also allowed to be paid by opposite parties to the complainant.”    

2.                Anil Kumar Singla-complainant/respondent, filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 averring that he is the owner of car bearing registration No.HR-06P-8323 (Alto). He purchased it from Mrs. Sarita Arora in the month of January, 2013. The car was insured with the Insurance Company for the period 11^th January, 2013 to 10^th January, 2014, vide policy Exhibit C-1. During the intervening night of November 19^th/20^th, 2013 the car was stolen. First Information Report (FIR) Exhibit C-3 was lodged on the same day, that is, 20^th November, 2013 in Police Station Chandnibagh, Panipat. The Insurance Company was also informed. Claim being lodged was repudiated. Hence the complainant filed complaint.

3.                Notice being issued, the Insurance Company-opposite party contested the complaint admitting that the car was insured for the period 11^th January, 2013 to 10^th January, 2014 and Mrs. Sarita Arora, was the registered owner of the car. It was stated that Sarita Arora sold the car to one Bijender Kumar in October, 2012 and later sold it to the complainant. However, the Insurance Policy was not transferred in the name of the complainant, therefore, complainant’s claim was repudiated.

4.                After evaluating the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum vide impugned order allowed complaint as detailed in paragraph No.1 of this order.

5.                Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company assailed the order of the District Forum raising plea that since the complainant was not the registered owner of the car, so nothing was payable to him.

6.                Indisputably, on the date of theft the car was registered and insured in the name of Sarita Arora. Copy of the Registration Certificate (Exhibit R-3) depicts that the vehicle was transferred in the name of the complainant on 10^th December, 2013 whereas theft took placed during the intervening night of 19^th/20^th November, 2013. Thus, on the date of theft the complainant was neither the registered owner nor the insured of the car and as such the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the complainant. The District Forum fell in error in allowing the complaint. So, the order of the District Forum cannot be sustained.

7.                In view of the above, the appeal is accepted, the impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.

8.                The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant  against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced: 28.10.2016

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 

CL