BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHABAD.
Complaint No.:180 of 2017.
Date of Instt.: 28.07.2018.
Date of Decision: 11.09.2018.
Roshan son of Ram Chander, resident of village Tamaspura, Tehsil Ratia, District Fatehabad.
…Complainant.
Versus
1. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited, Registered & Head Office : Dare House, 2nd Floor, No. 2, N.S.C. Bose Road, Chennai through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director.
2. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, G.T. Road, Fatehabad through its Branch Manager.
…Opposite Parties.
Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Before: Sh.Raghbir Singh, President.
Sh. M.K. Khurana, Member.
Present: Sh. Ramanand, counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Vishnu Delu, counsel for the opposite parties.
ORDER:
The present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by the complainant against the Opposite Parties with the averments that he got his vehicle bearing registration no. HR-62/6627 insured with the OPs vide policy no. 3379/01439126/000/00 and valid from 10.6.2016 to 9.6.2017. The premium for insurance was paid by the complainant to the OPs and as such the complainant is consumer of the OPs.
2. It is further submitted that on 5.1.2017 the said insured vehicle met with an accident at about 8.30 p.m. and intimation regarding the same was given by him to the OPs. Thereafter, the OPs deputed its surveyor and loss assessor. The surveyor took photographs of the accidental vehicle and the complainant was informed that repairing and denting/painting of the damaged vehicle shall be done very soon and he was asked to park the damaged vehicle in the garage. However, till date neither repairing nor denting/painting of the damaged vehicle has been done by the OPs and as such the complainant is unable to use the insured vehicle.
3. It is further submitted that on 20.2.2017, a legal notice was issued by the complainant upon the OPs to get the vehicle repaired but all in vain. The abovesaid act on the part of OPs amounts to deficiency in rendering service to the complainant. The complainant has further prayed that the OPs may be directed to get the damaged vehicle repaired along-with denting and painting. The complainant has also further prayed for grant of compensation of Rs. 25,000/- in his favour. Hence the present complaint.
4. On being served the OPs appeared and filed written statement, wherein various preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, cause of action and concealment of true and correct facts etc. have been raised.
5. In reply on merits, it is submitted that the complainant had already sold the vehicle in question in December 2016 and the alleged accident had occurred on 5.1.2017. Therefore, on the date when the accident took place the complainant was not in ownership of the insured vehicle. The vehicle in question was in possession of its new owner namely Darshai and as such the insurance claim of the complainant has been repudiated on the ground that on the date of accident the complainant was not having insurable interest. It is further submitted that the complainant has played a fraud just to grab the money from the OPs. It is further submitted that there is no deficiency on the part of OPs in rendering service to the complainant and as such the present complaint is without any merits and liable to be dismissed.
6. The learned counsel for the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of the complainant as Annexure CW1/A along-with documents as Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-7 and closed the evidence of the complainant. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Satyabratta Das Assistant Manager (Legal) as Exhibit OPW1/A on behalf of OPs and the documents as as Annexure R1 and Annexure R-2.
7. We have duly considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the entire material placed on record of the present case. It is not disputed that the insurance of the vehicle in question of the complainant was issued by the OPs and the same was valid from 10.6.2016 to 9.6.2017. It is also not disputed that premium for the insurance was paid by the complainant to the OPs for the abovesaid insurance. It is also not disputed that the insured vehicle met with an accident on 5.1.2017 i.e. during the subsistence of the insurance. The insurance claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the OPs only on the ground that the insured vehicle had already been sold by the complainant before the date of occurrence i.e. 5.1.2017 and on the date of accident the vehicle was not in possession of the complainant. However, in support of above contention, the OPs have not produced any cogent, convincing or credible evidence/document to prove that insured vehicle had already been sold by the complainant before 5.1.2017. The document i.e. Annexure R-1, relied upon by the OPs in support of their contention is not an authentic document to prove that the insured vehicle had already been sold by the complainant to other person and on the date of accident the complainant was not in possession of the insured vehicle. Therefore, the repudiation of the insurance claim of the complainant by the OPs is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The present complaint is accordingly allowed and the OPs are directed to repair the insured vehicle along-with denting/painting as per terms and conditions of the insured policy. The OPs are further directed for making a payment of Rs. 5100/- to the complainant as compensation and litigation charges. The present order be complied with within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the present order. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. Dated:11.09.2018
(Raghbir Singh) President (M.K.Khurana) Distt. Consumer Dispute
Member Redressal Forum, Fatehabad.
