Order No. 16 Dt. 23.08.2017
This is a case U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Here the complainant Md. Abdul Kaiyom has claimed compensation from New India Assurance Company Limited Rs. 85000/- for the theft of his insured vehicle held on 26/06/2016. From the complaint case and from the relevant document the following positions are revealed herein under:-
- Subject matter of the case as follows:-
Subject matter of the case is a Bajaj Pulsor Motor Bike 150 C.C. bearing Chassis No. MD2A11CZ9FCM65039 and Engine No. DHZCFM41799 originally belong to one Ajijul. The complainant acquired the ownership of the said vehicle on purchase and got registered his name in the RT Office on 21/06/2016. The instant vehicle was stolen from the custody of the complainant on 26/06/2016. The complainant got insured of the said vehicle on 28.06.2016. In spite of the fact that the said vehicle was insured by Ajijul by the O.P. Insurance Company on 10/06/2016 and the validity period was up to 09.06.2017 The claimant submitted application before the O.P. Insurance Company for compensation of the theft of his vehicle but the claim was repudiated by the O.P. Company. So this case.
The New India Assurance Co. the O.P. has contested this case by submitting a W/V that the vehicle was stolen on 26/06/2016 and the claimant got insured his vehicle on 28/06/2016 and the incident was not taken place within validity period of the said contract of insurance and as such the claimant has no legal right to claim compensation from the O.P Company. In this case the complainant has submitted the affidavit-in-chief and he was cross-examined by the O.P. The O.P. did not adduce any evidence. The relevant document has produced from both sides and argument of both sides was heard.
Points for Determination:
- Has the petitioner any cause of action to file the written complaint U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986?
- Whether the repudiation of the insurance claim of the petitioner by the O.P. stands within the purview of deficiency of service?
- Is the petitioner entitled to get any relief in this case?
::DECISION WITH REASONS::
All the points are taken up togetherly for discussion and consideration.
Admittedly, one Ajijul was the owner of the instant vehicle. He got insurance of the said vehicle on 10/06/2016 and the validity period of the said insurance continued till 09.06.2017. By this time he has handed over the ownership and delivered the possession of the said vehicle to the present claimant, Abdul Kaiyom who got mutation of his name done as owner of the vehicle in the RT Office Malda. On 26/06/2017 the vehicle was stolen away. The claimant again insured the vehicle in his name to the same Insurance Company (O.P.) on 28/06/2017. The validity period was up to 09/06/2017. At the time of argument Ld.Advocate of the Insurance Company mentioned that when the newly owner Kaiyom got insured of the vehicle the same was not under his possession as it was already stolen away and the insurance period covers from 28/06/2016 to 09/06/2017 where the alleged theft took place on 26/06/2017 which clearly indicates that at the time of theft of the vehicle there was no insurance coverage of the vehicle between claimant and the O.P. Company. So he is not entitled to claim any insurance money or compensation for theft of his vehicle.
Ld. Advocate of the complainant countered his argument to the score that at the time of theft of the said vehicle the insurance coverage was in subsistence between the previous owner and the O.P. Company and the petitioner as soon purchased the vehicle stepped in to the shoe of the original owner Ajijul and he is entitled to claim compensation by virtue of the insurance agreement between the previous owner and the O.P. Company.
After going through all this we find that actually by the new insurance contract on 28/06/2016 by the present owner of the vehicle, the existing insurance policy of Ajijul became lapsed on 28/06/2017 as two policies over the same subject matter must not exist simultaneously. On the other hand while the petitioner claimant got ownership of the vehicle he stepped into the shoe of the previous owner and he has acquired the right and privileges of the previous owner as soon he purchased the same including the insurance coverage till 09.06.2017.
Only the petitioner had the duty to inform the Insurance Company to mutate his name in the insurance policy in the place of previous owner of the vehicle. The claimant perhaps to secure his interest for getting compensation he adopted a new policy while the vehicle had already stolen away from his custody.
The claimant had the opportunity to renovate the contract of insurance between the previous owner and the O.P. Company. As the Insurance Policy of the vehicle still subsists till 09/06/2017and the Insurance Company on the other hand could not be absolved from their liability to pay compensation to the claimant as the contract of insurance policy between the previous owner and the company was in existence at the time of the alleged incident of theft and the claimant only stepped into the shoe of the original owner after purchasing the same vehicle.
Therefore, repudiation on the part of the Insurance Company certainly comes within the definition of ‘Deficiency of Service’ and the claimant as soon got ownership of the vehicle on purchase became the ‘Consumer’ under the Provision of C.P. Act, 1986. The status of the vehicle is second hand and old one. The claim amount is not justifiable in the context of the present market value of the said vehicle. So the Fora deems it fit to ask the Insurance Company to pay compensation to the claimant in the tune of Rs.20000/- and for harassment and litigation cost another Rs.5000/- to be paid to the claimant.
All points are hereby settled in this way.
In the result, the claim case succeeds.
Proper fee paid.
Hence, it is ordered
that the complaint u/s. 12 of the C.P. Act is hereby allowed in contest with cost.
O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 are hereby asked to pay Rs.20000/- as compensation and Rs.5000/- as harassment and litigation cost to the claimant within two months failing which 6% p.a. as interest shall be carried over the awarded money till its realization and the petitioner will be at liberty to put the decree in execution if the order of the Forum are not being complied with.
Let a copy of this order be handed over to the parties free of cost.
