Haryana

Sonipat

CC/385/2015

Darshan Kumar S/o Om Parkash - Complainant(s)

Versus

Cholamandlam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

L.S. Kaushik

22 Apr 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

               

 

                                Complaint No.385  of 2015.                                                Instituted on:14.10.2015

                                Date of order:14.07.2016

 

Darshan Kumar son of Om Parkash, r/o village Pehwa, Kurukshetra, through its General Power of attorney Balraj son of Hukmi, resident of village Mehmoodpur, Sonepat.

…Complainant.         

Versus

 

1.Cholamandlam MS General Ins. Co., HO Dare House, 2^nd Floor, No.2, NSC Bose road, Chennai, through its Branch Manager.

2.Branch Office, Cholamandlam Insurance, SCO 103 2^nd Floor Mugal Kanal Market, Karnal, Haryana.

                                                     …Respondents.

 

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. LS Kaushik     Advocate for complainant.

           Sh. Rajiv Kuhar    Advocate for respondent.

 

Before-    Nagender Singh-President.

Prabha Wati-Member.

J.L. Gupta-Member.

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging himself the general power of attorney of the registered owner of vehicle no.HR-65-7423 and the said vehicle was insured with the respondent for the period 10.3.2014 to 9.3.2015.  Unfortunately the said vehicle was stolen and FIR no.360 dated 7.11.2014 was lodged with PS Sadar Gohana.  The complainant has informed the respondents regarding the theft of the vehicle and has completed all the required formalities.   The complainant has also complied the letter dated 19.1.2015 issued by the surveyor of the respondent M/s Active Services.  Now even after the lapse of more than one year, the respondent has not paid the sum assured to the complainant and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        In reply, the respondents have submitted that Darshan insured has sold the vehicle in question to Devendra and the said Devendra has further sold the vehicle in question to Balraj on 8.3.2014.  Hence, the complainant has no insurable interest to file the present complaint. In this regard, Darshan complainant and Devender has submitted an affidavit with the company.  The respondents have repudiated the claim vide letter dated 9.2.2015.  Further the claim of the complainant is premature as the complainant has not lodged any claim with the respondents as there is a delay of 7 days in lodging the claim.  The vehicle was stolen due to the sole negligence on the part of the complainant himself and has violated the terms and conditions of the policy.  The claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated by the respondents.  The complainant is not entitled for any relief & compensation and has prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.        We have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties at length.  All the documents have been perused very carefully and minutely.

          Ld. counsel for the complainant has submitted that  the complainant is the general power of attorney of the registered owner of vehicle no.HR-65-7423 and the said vehicle was insured with the respondent for the period 10.3.2014 to 9.3.2015.  Unfortunately the said vehicle was stolen and FIR no.360 dated 7.11.2014 was lodged with PS Sadar Gohana.  The complainant has informed the respondents regarding the theft of the vehicle and has completed all the required formalities.   The complainant has also complied the letter dated 19.1.2015 issued by the surveyor of the respondent M/s Active Services.  Now even after the lapse of more than one year, the respondent has not paid the sum assured to the complainant and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

          Ld. Counsel for the respondents has submitted that Darshan insured has sold the vehicle in question to Devendra and the said Devendra has further sold the vehicle in question to Balraj on 8.3.2014.  Hence, the complainant has no insurable interest to file the present complaint. In this regard, Darshan complainant and Devender has submitted an affidavit with the company.  The respondents have repudiated the claim vide letter dated 9.2.2015.  Further the claim of the complainant is premature as the complainant has not lodged any claim with the respondents as there is a delay of 7 days in lodging the claim.  The vehicle was stolen due to the sole negligence on the part of the complainant himself and has violated the terms and conditions of the policy.  The claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated by the respondents.  The complainant is not entitled for any relief & compensation.

          We have perused the affidavit Annexure R9 wherein it is deposed by Devender son of Suraj Bhan that on 8.3.2014  he has sold the vehicle no.HR-65-7423 to one Balraj son of Hukam Chand for Rs.2,29,500/- and as per the affidavit, the remaining amount of loan will be paid by the purchaser i.e. Balraj.  Further as per Annexure R8 i.e. affidavit executed by Darshan Kumar shows that he has sold his vehicle no.HR-65-7423 to one Balraj son of Hukami.

          As per survey report, the vehicle no.HR-65-7423 was sold to one Balraj by the complainant Darshan. Claim form Annexure R6 was also filled by Balraj.  As per FIR also, the vehicle no.HR-65-7423 was purchased by Balraj from Darshan i.e. the present complainant. FIR was also got registered by Balraj.

          The bare perusal of the documents shows that the respondent insurance company has repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 16.02.2015 on the ground that the vehicle no.HR-65-7423 was sold by Darshan to one Balraj before the date of loss and in these circumstances, the complainant has no insurable interest in the vehicle.

          It is also proved from the record that the vehicle no.HR65-7423 was financed by IndusInd Bank who has not been impleaded as a party by the complainant.  As per Ex.C12, an amount of Rs.89388/- of the financier was outstanding against the complainant in respect of the financed vehicle.  The bare perusal of the account statement issued by IndusInd Bank on 26.3.2016 shows that Cholamandlam insurance company has deposited an amount of Rs.85000/- on 30.3.2015 in the account of the complainant.  It means that to some extent, the respondent insurance company has admitted the claim of the complainant partly.  On one hand, the respondent has repudiated the claim of the complainant on 16.2.2015 and thereafter they have deposited Rs.85000/- in the account of the complainant on 30.3.2015.  This act of the respondent shows that the respondent insurance company has admitted the claim of the complainant to be legal and genuine.  So, we are of the view that the complainant is entitled to get the claim amount in respect of the vehicle no.HR-65-7423 from the respondent.  Accordingly, we hereby direct the respondent insurance company to make the payment of Rs.259186/- (Rs.344186 – 85000 = Rs.259186/-  i.e. Rs.85000/- already received by the complainant from the respondent on 30.3.2015) to Darshan Kumar son of Om Parkash within a period of 60 days from the date of passing of this order, failing which, the above said amount shall fetch interest at the rate of 09% per annum from the date of passing of this order till its realization.

 

 

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

          Certified copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

(Prabha Wati)(J.L.Gupta)                   (Nagender Singh-President)

Member DCDRF  Member DCDRF                   DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced: 14.07.2016