Haryana

Sonipat

361/2013

JAI KISHAN S/O RAM SARUP - Complainant(s)

Versus

BRANCH MANAGER THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

Mannu malik

28 Jan 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SONEPAT.

                                                      

                                    Complaint No.361 of 2013

                                    Instituted on:02.09.2013

                                    Date of order:06.04.2015

 

Jai Kishan son of Shri Ram Sarup, resident of village Butana, tehsil Gohana, distt. Sonepat.

     …….Complainant

                   VERSUS

 

Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Ist Floor, Rohtak road, Gohana, Distt. Sonepat.

 ……..Respondent

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. Mannu Malik, Adv. for complainant.

           Sh. Surender Malik, Adv. for respondent.

 

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 respondent alleging himself to be the registered owner of truck no.HR69A/5766 which was insured with the respondent from 22.1.2012 to 21.1.2013 and unfortunately, the said truck met with an accident on 22.10.2012.  Intimation in this regard was given to the respondent.  Shri Jugal Kishore Duneja was deputed as surveyor, who inspected the vehicle.  The complainant got the said vehicle repaired by spending a total amount of Rs.1,89,218/-.  Thereafter the complainant has lodged the claim with the respondent and submitted all the required documents, but despite this, the respondent has repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 15.2.2013.  The complainant has alleged the repudiation of his claim to be wrong and illegal. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.       In reply, the respondent has submitted that the complainant and Ram Kumar have violated the terms and conditions of the policy.  As per statement of Ram Kumar, he had purchased the truck in question about 1½ years back and he is owner in possession of the said vehicle and at the time of loss i.e. 22.10.2012 there is no insurable interest of Jai Kishan in the vehicle in question.  The complainant and Ram Kumar has tried to twist the story. The complainant has concealed the material facts from this Hon’ble Forum as the complainant is merely a registered owner of the vehicle and the truck was financed in his name.  The bills on which the complainant is relying upon are procured one and as per report of surveyor, the total loss comes to the tune of Rs.75012/- and not Rs.189218/-.   The complainant’s claim was rightly repudiated by the respondent as the truck in question was already sold by the complainant to one Ram Kumar prior to the date of accident.  The complainant has not suffered any mental agony or harassment at the hands of the respondent and thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent and prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

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.       In the present case, the complainant has alleged the repudiation of his claim to be wrong and illegal. Whereas the respondent has submitted that the claim was rightly repudiated by the insurance company since the complainant has no insurable interest in the vehicle as the complainant has sold the truck in question to one Ram Kumar prior to the date of accident.

         In the present case, the complainant has submitted the estimate of repair to the tune of Rs.2,74,000/- to the insurance company. 

         The bare perusal of the surveyor’s report shows that the surveyor has not sanctioned the total parts damaged.  He has recommended only 04 parts out of 14 parts.  Why the other parts were not replaced or repaired, nothing is mentioned by the surveyor.  Similarly, the surveyor has recommended two plastic parts out of 6 plastic parts. Why the other parts were not replaced or repaired, nothing is mentioned by the surveyor in his report Annexure R6.

         As per the RC of the vehicle, Jai Kishan is the registered owner of the vehicle.  The claim form was filled and signed by both the persons i.e. complainant Jai Kishan and Ram Kumar.  There is no hide and seek on the part of complainant Jai Kishan. The respondent has failed to place on record any affidavit regarding sale and purchase of the vehicle in question.  The surveyor has assessed the net loss to the tune of Rs.75012/-.  Whereas the complainant by way of present complaint has claimed Rs.1,89,218/- from the respondent.  In our view, the ends of justice would be fully met if the respondent is directed to make the payment of Rs.1,10,000/- in lumpsum to the complainant. Accordingly, we hereby direct the respondent to make the payment of Rs.1,10,000/- in lumpsum to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 09% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint till its realization.

         With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands partly allowed.

 

         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 : 06.04.2015.