Haryana

StateCommission

A/784/2015

RELIANCE GEN.INSURANCE CO.LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

ASHISH KUMAR - Opp.Party(s)

P.M.GOYAL

15 Mar 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

                                                         First Appeal No.784 of 2015

Date of Institution: 16.09.2015

                                                               Date of Decision: 15.03.2016

 

Reliance General Insurance Company Private Ltd., 2^nd floor, SCO 400-401-402 HDFC Bank Building, Model Town Delhi Road, Rohtak, Haryana through Authorized Signatory Sh.Amit Chawla Manager (Legal), Reliance General Insurance Company, S.C.O. No.145-146, Sector 9-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.

 

…..Appellant

Versus

 

Ashish Kumar S/o Sh.Mehar Singh R/o Village Kanda, District Sonepat, Haryana.

                                      …..Respondent

 

CORAM:             Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.

                             Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                                                                                                                         

Present:              Shri Gaurav Sharma, Advocate counsel for appellant.

                             Shri Atul Arya, Advocate counsel for the respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

          It was alleged by the complainant that he got his vehicle, bearing registration No.HR-10S/5542, insured from the appellant-opposite party (O.P.) for the value of Rs.2,85,000/-.  The insurance was valid from 12.12.2012 to 11.12.2013. The vehicle met with an accident and was damaged totally. FIR No.207/2013 dated 26.02.2013 was registered at P.S. Sampla.  He immediately intimated O.P. and submitted all the required documents, but, his claim was repudiated vide letter dated 28.06.2013.

2.      O.P. filed reply controverting his claim and alleged that alleged vehicle was sold to Satish 8-9 months before the said accident dated 24.02.2013. The vehicle was fitted with unapproved fitment of CNG kit.  The complainant violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and his claim was rightly repudiated.

3.      After hearing both the parties, learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal, Forum, Rohtak (in short “District Forum”) allowed the complaint vide impugned order dated 20.07.2015 and directed as under:-

“In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, opposite party is directed to pay the amount of Rs.2,85,000/- (rupees two lac eighty five thousand only) along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 06.11.2013 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.2500/- (rupees two thousand five hundred only) as litigation expenses to the complainant maximum within one month from the date of decision failing which the awarded amount shall fetch interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of decision.  Complaint is allowed accordingly.”

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, O.P. has preferred this appeal.

5.      Arguments heard.  File perused.

6.      Learned counsel for the appellant-O.P. vehemently argued that  as per evidence available on the file it is clear that the vehicle was sold by complainant to one Satish Kumar 8-9 months prior to the accident.  Due to this reason the claim was repudiated as mentioned in letters EX.R-5 and Ex.R-4.  Satish Kumar lodged FIR Ex.R-8 wherein it was alleged by him that he was owner of that car. This fact is also mentioned in his affidavit Ex.R-2.  In this way complainant was not having insurable interest in the vehicle and was not entitled for any compensation.  In support of his arguments he placed reliance upon judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in civil appeal No.7515 of 2001 titled as M/s Krishna Food & Banking Industry P. Ltd. Vs. M/s New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Anr. and opinion of Hon’ble National Commission expressed in revision petition No.3160 of 2013 titled as Gawar Construction Company Vs. United India Insurance Company decided on 30.01.2015.

7.      These arguments is devoid of any force.  The appellant has miserably failed to prove that the vehicle was sold by the complainant to Satish Kumar before the incident. On the basis of affidavit R-12 it cannot be presumed that the vehicle was sold.  Firstly this  affidavit is of Satish Kumar and not of the complainant.  Secondly, Satish Kumar was not produced to prove this affidavit. Any document collected by surveyor during the investigation cannot be relied upon to come to conclusion that the vehicle was sold.  What was the hindrance in producing Satish Kumar is no-where explained.  As per FIR Ex.R-8 it cannot be presumed that Satish Kumar was owner of the car if it was alleged by him that on the aforesaid date he was coming in his car which met with an accident.  While lodging FIR one can allege the vehicle as his own. He nowhere stated that he was owner of that vehicle.  Further as per affidavit Ex.R-12 dated 03.05.2013 the vehicle was purchased by Satish Kumar about 8-9 months ago i.e. in the month of September or October 2012, whereas insurance policy Ex.R-2 was issued on 12.12.2012.  If Satish Kumar was owner then how the insurance policy was issued in the name of the complainant.  All these facts clearly show that Satish Kumar was not owner of the vehicle and the complainant was having insurable interest in the vehicle in question. Learned District Forum rightly allowed the complaint.  Appeal has no merits and the same is hereby 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.

 

March 15th, 2016        Urvashi Agnihotri                                R.K.Bishnoi,                                                               Member                                             Judicial Member                                                          Addl. Bench                                       Addl. Bench                

S.K.