Haryana

Karnal

31/2011

Ashok Kumar S/o Krishan Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bajaj Allianz Insurance Company Limited., 2 Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Rahul Bali

16 Oct 2014

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No. 31 of 2011

                                                          Date of instt. 17.01.2011                                                                                        Date of decision: 26.02.2015

 

Ashok Kumar son of Shri Krishan Singh resident of House no.147, Gali No.4, Moti Nagar, Karnal..

                                                ………..Complainant.

 

                             Versus

1.Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.Ltd. SCO No.329, Sector 9, Panchkula through its Manager.

 

2. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.Ltd.Sector 12, Urban Estate, Karnal through its Manager.

                                                ……… Opposite Parties.

 

                   Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer

                   Protection Act.

 

Before          Sh.Subhash Goyal……. President.

                   Sh.Subhash Chander Sharma….Member.

                  

 

 Present        Sh.Rahul Bali Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Rohit  Gupta Advocate for the Ops.

         

 ORDER:

 

                        The  complainant has filed the present complaint against the Ops u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in services on the allegations that the complainant has purchased a vehicle LCV bearing registration NO. HR-45-7396 from one Subhash  Chander son of Sh.Jyan Singh resident of V & P.O.Garhi Jattan Disitrict Karnal.   It has been further alleged that as per agreement dated 18.10.2007, it was made clear that first party  i.e. Subhash Chander had sold the said vehicle to the second party i.e. Ashok Kumar (Complainant) and total costs of the said vehicle was Rs.3,90,000/-  out of which the owner had received Rs.2,25,000/- from the complainant in cash on 18.10.2007 and rest of the installments of the loan  in respect of the said vehicle  which were to be paid by the previous owner, were agreed to be paid by the complainant  in seven installments @ Rs.11,167/- each.  It has also been alleged that unfortunately the vehicle met with an accident on 25.9.2010  and during the said period insurance policy bearing No. OG-10-1003-1803-00003295 was in existence issued by the OPs and the OPs were  duly informed by the complainant regarding the factum of accident.  Thereafter, the complainant lodged the claim with the  OP regarding damages sustained by the vehicle in the said accident and completed all the formalities but the claim was not paid by the OPs despite service of legal notice. Thus, alleging deficiency in services on the part of the OPs, the complainant has filed the present complaint and has prayed that the OPs be directed to pay the claim to the complainant and compensation for the harassment caused to him and the litigation expenses. The complainant has also tendered his affidavit  in support of the contents of the complaint alongwith, copy of  letter Ex.C2, copy of repudiation letter Ex.C3, copy of legal notice Ex.C4, copy of postal receipt Ex.C5, copy of affidavit Ex.C6 Agreement Ex.C7,  General Power of attorney Ex.C8, copy of registration certificate Ex.C9 and copy of insurance policy Ex.C10.

 

2.                On notice the OPs appeared and filed  written statement raising the preliminary objections that the complainant has no cause of action and that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and to decide thepresent complaint.

 

                   On merits issuance of the insurance policy, accident of the vehicle, ownership of the vehicle in the name of the complainant and repudiation of the claim has not been denied. It was contended that at the time of the accident, the insurance policy was not in the name of complainant and as such the complainant had no insurable interest in respect of the said vehicle. Sh.Sachin Ohri, Assistant Manager, Legal of the OP has also tendered his affidavit in support of the contentions made in the written statement alongwith certain other documents  which would be discussed at the relevant stages.

 

3.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file very carefully.

 

4.                Therefore, from the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence on the file and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it emerges that the complainant has filed the present complaint alleging deficiency in services on the part of the OP  on the ground that complainant has purchased a vehicle LCV bearing registration NO. HR-45-7396 from one Subhash  Chander son of Sh.Jyan Singh resident of V & P.O.Garhi Jattan Disitrict Karnal.   It has been further alleged that as per agreement dated 18.10.2007, it was made clear that first party  i.e. Subhash Chander had sold the said vehicle to the second party i.e. Ashok Kumar (Complainant) and total costs of the said vehicle was Rs.3,90,000/-  out of which the owner had received Rs.2,25,000/- from the complainant in cash on 18.10.2007 and rest of the installments of the loan  in respect of the said vehicle  which were to be paid by the previous owner, were agreed to be paid by the complainant  in seven installments @ Rs.11,167/- each.  It has also been alleged that unfortunately the vehicle met with an accident on 25.9.2010  and during the said period insurance policy bearing No. OG-10-1003-1803-00003295 Ex.06 was in existence issued by the OPs and the OP were duly informed by the complainant regarding the factum of accident.  Thereafter, the complainant lodged the claim with the  OP regarding damages sustained by the vehicle in the said accident and completed all the formalities but the claim was not paid by the OPs.

 

 

                   However, as per the contention of the OPs, the insurance policy issued by the OPs in respect of the said vehicle was  not in the name of complainant at the time of accident  and as such the complainant had no insurable interest at that time and as such the claim has rightly been repudiated vide Ex.C3. The learned counsel for the Ops has placed reliance on the law laid down in cases United India Insurance Co.etc. Vs.Bhupinder Singh in revision petition no.3452 of 2008 decided on 20.5.2014(NC), New India Assuranceco.Ltd. Vs.Ashok Thakur in revision petition NO.3170 of 2008 decided on 3.12.2013, (NC) Sandeep Gupta Versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd. in revision petition No.2355 of 2012 decided on 14.2.2014 (NC), The New India Assurance Co.etc. Vs. Akbar son of Nabeesa in revision petition No.3597 of 2008 decided on 16.1.2014 (NC), D.P.Srivastava Vs. M/s Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd.  in revision petition No.64 of 2013 decided  on 8.2.2013(NC) order delivered by the Hon,ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh in  CWP No.15037 of 2008 titled Bajaj Allianz Vs.Permanent Lok  Adalat decided on 14.9.2010 and the order dated  19.05.2014 delivered by the Hon,ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab Chandigarh  in case Bajaj  Allianz Vs.Tarsem Lal etc.

 

                   The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that as on the date of accident i.e. 25.09.2010. The ownership of the vehicle in question has been transferred in the name of the complainant and the insurance policy has been transferred in the name of complainant on 14.12.2010 and as such the claim of the complainant has been wrongly repudiated.

 

6.                 Therefore, after going through the circumstances of the case and the evidence on the file that the vehicle bearing No. HR-45-7396  was insured with the OPs vide insurance policy Ex.O6  and the said vehicle met with an accident on 25.9.2010

and the claim was lodged with the Ops but the claim of the complainant was repudiated vide letter Ex.C3 .   No doubt as on the date of accident the  ownership of the vehicle was transferred in the name of complainant but the insurance policy was in the name of earlier owner Sh.Subhash Chander and the insurance policy was transferred in the name of the complainant only on  14.12.2010 vide Ex.O8. Therefore, in view of the law laid down in the authorities relied upon by the Ops, the claim has been repudiated. However, the Hon,ble Apex Court in  Amalendu Sahoo Vs.OIC  Civil Appeal no.2703 of 2010  has held that in such like cases the claim can be granted on non standard basis  and has laid down the guide lines for granting compensation on  non standard basis . Hon, ble National Commission has also taken the same view in case OIC Ltd. Versus Parvesh Chaander Chadha 2009(1) CPC Page 55. Therefore, In view of the guidelines laid down in Amalendu Shaoo,s case (Supra)  and the Hon,ble National Commission in OIC Ltd.,s case (Supra) we deem it proper to grant compensation on the basis of non standard basis to the extent of 75% of the admissible claim.

 

7.                Therefore, in view of our above discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the Ops to make the payment of 75% of the amount  as assessed by the surveyor vide report dated 12.11.2010, to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 17.01.2011  till its actual realization. The complainant shall also be entitled for a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation for the harassment caused to him and a sum of Rs.2200/- towards legal fee and the litigation expenses. The Ops shall make the compliance of this order within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

  Announced

  26.02.2015.                                                                    (Subhash Goyal)

                                                                                      President,

                                                                         District Consumer Disputes  

                                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

                  

(Subhash Chander Sharma)

                      Member.

 

 

Present         Sh.Rahul Bali Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Rohit  Gupta Advocate for the Ops.

 

                   Arguments heard. For orders, the case is adjourned to 26.2.2015.

 

  Announced

  25.02.2015.                                                                    (Subhash Goyal)

                                                                                      President,

                                                                         District Consumer Disputes  

                                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

                  

(Subhash Chander Sharma)

                      Member.

 

Present         Sh.Rahul Bali Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Rohit  Gupta Advocate for the Ops.

 

                   Vide our separate order of the even date, the present complaint  has been accepted. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

  Announced

  26.02.2015.                                                                    (Subhash Goyal)

                                                                                      President,

                                                                         District Consumer Disputes  

                                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

                  

(Subhash Chander Sharma)

                      Member.