Order No. 14 dt. 27/11/2018
The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant purchased a second hand Honda City Car bearing Registration No.WB06B3633 from o.p. no.4 and a loan was sanctioned in respect of the said vehicle of the complainant by o.p. no.3 on 23/12/2015. It was stated by the complainant that he has his said vehicle insured with the o.p. nos. 1 and 2 vide Insurance Policy No.2311 2012 8753 8500 000 covering the period from 22/12/2015 to 21/12/2016. It is also stated that the said vehicle of the complainant met with an accident on 02/01/2016 and the vehicle was sent to the service centre of Honda City for necessary repair. The complainant, thereafter, has filed his claim of Insurance to the o.p. nos. 1 and 2 praying for disbursement of requiring amount so that he may repair his vehicle to the o.p. nos. 1 and 2. The o.p. nos. 1 and 2 rejected the said claim of insurance on 18/03/2016, on the ground of non production of registration certificate of the said vehicle, which compelled the complainant to file this instant case. Accordingly, complainant has prayed for direction upon the o.p. nos. 1 and 2 to disburse an amount of Rs.80,000/- along with compensation of Rs.60,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.30,000/-.
O.p. nos. 1 and 2 have contested the case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. It was stated that after the accident took place the damaged vehicle was taken to garage for repair but work of repairing has not yet been started till date and also stated that until and unless the final repairing bill has been submitted the insurer could not disburse the insurance claim, therefore, the o.p. nos. 1 and 2 has no liability in respect of the consequential loss of the damaged vehicle as per terms and conditions of the policy. O.p. nos. 1 and 2 had prayed for dismissal of the case with cost. The o.p. no.3 has stated that complainant has availed loan from o.p. bank for purchasing his vehicle and o.p. bank has no role to transfer the ownership of the said vehicle or to disburse the insurance claim and as the complainant has no grievance against o.p. no.3 so he should be expunged from the instant case.
To prove the case both the parties have filed evidence in affidavit.
On the basis of the pleadings of the respective parties following points are to be decided :-
- Has there deficiency in service on the part of the o.p. (insurance company)?
- Is the complainant entitled to get the relief as he prayed for?
Decision with reasons :-
All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.
PointNo.-1
Ld. Lawyer for the complainant argued that that the complainant purchased a second hand Honda City Car bearing Registration No.WB06B3633 from o.p. no.4 and a loan was sanctioned in respect of the said vehicle of the complainant by o.p. no.3 on 23/12/2015. It was stated by the complainant that he has his said vehicle insured with the o.p. nos. 1 and 2 vide Insurance Policy No.2311 2012 8753 8500 000 covering the period from 22/12/2015 to 21/12/2016. It is also stated that the said vehicle of the complainant met with an accident on 02/01/2016 and the vehicle was sent to the service centre of Honda City for necessary repair. The complainant, thereafter, has filed his claim of Insurance to the o.p. nos. 1 and 2 praying for disbursement of requiring amount so that he may repair his vehicle to the o.p. nos. 1 and 2. The o.p. nos. 1 and 2 rejected the said claim of insurance on 18/03/2016, on the ground of non production of registration certificate of the said vehicle, which compelled the complainant to file this instant case. Accordingly, complainant has prayed for direction upon the o.p. nos. 1 and 2 to disburse an amount of Rs.80,000/- along with compensation of Rs.60,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.30,000/-.
Ld. Lawyer for the o.p.s argued that after the accident took place the damaged vehicle was taken to garage for repair but work of repairing has not yet been started till date and also stated that until and unless the final repairing bill has been submitted the insurer could not disburse the insurance claim, therefore, the o.p. nos. 1 and 2 has no liability in respect of the consequential loss of the damaged vehicle as per terms and conditions of the policy. O.p. nos. 1 and 2 had prayed for dismissal of the case with cost. The o.p. no.3 has stated that complainant has availed loan from o.p. bank for purchasing his vehicle and o.p. bank has no role to transfer the ownership of the said vehicle or to disburse the insurance claim and as the complainant has no grievance against o.p. no.3 so he should be expunged from the instant case.
Considering the submissions of the respective parties it is an admitted fact that the complainant purchased a second hand Honda City car from o.p. no.4 and for purchasing the same he availed loan from o.p. no.3 and he has vehicle insured with the o.p. no.1 and 2 covering the period from 22/12/2015 to 21/12/2016. Admittedly, the said vehicle of the complainant met with an accident on 02/01/2016, therefore, it is evident that at the time of accident the vehicle in question was under cover of insurance.
o.ps. have submitted that the ground of repudiation of the claim of the complainant was non production of registration certificate which they have asked to complainant for several occasions. On the other hand the complainant has stated that he had applied for transfer of ownership to the Motor Vehicle Department prior to obtain insurance policy being no. 2311 2012 8753 8500 000 covering the period from 22/12/2015 to 21/12/2016. In support of such averment the complainant has filed photo copy of Form No. 29 and 30. On scrutiny of those documents it appears that the complainant applied to Motor Vehicle Department on 15/11/2015 and obtained insurance policy on 22/12/2015. Therefore, it is evident that the complainant initiated transfer of ownership of the said vehicle prior to obtain the insurance policy.
Considering the state of affairs it appears that the transfer of ownership of the vehicle was on process at the point of time of the accident. It is admitted that at the point of time of accident the insurance policy was in force, however, the complainant initiated the transfer of ownership of the said vehicle prior to obtain the insurance policy but materialization of transfer of ownership was beyond his control. Therefore, non-transfer of ownership of the said vehicle cannot be considered as fault on the part of the complainant, and hence, the complainant cannot be deprived from legitimate protection of the insurance policy he obtained.
In such view of the matter we are of opinion that the repudiation of the claim by the o.p. insurer is not justifiable which amounts to deficiency in the service on the part of the o.p. (insurer).
Point no. 1 is decided accordingly.
Point No.-2
On perusal of insurance policy document, it appears that sum insured Rs.3,50,000/-. Ffurther it appears from the report of the surveyor appointed by the manufacturing authority of the said vehicle that the estimated cost of repair is Rs.1,08,653/-. The complainant demanded much less than the estimated amount. The complainant has filed his claim praying for disbursement of Rs.80,000/- towards cost of repair of the said vehicle. However, no such survey report has been furnished before us claiming that the claim of Rs.80,000/- filed by the complainant is an inflated amount.
Considering the above mentioned facts, we are of opinion that the complainant is entitle to get the claimed amount.
The complainant has prayed for direction upon the o.p. to pay Rs.60,000/- towards compensation in this respect we think Rs.20,000/- will be just and proper to compensate the complainant. We are also inclined to award an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation cost. Point no.2 is decided accordingly.
Point No.2 is decided accordingly.
In the result the CC No. 330 of 2017 succeeds.
Hence, it is ordered,
That the CC No. 330/2017 is allowed on contest with cost against o.p. nos. 1 and 2 and is dismissed against o.p. no.3 without cost.
O.p. nos. 1 and 2 are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs.80,000/- (Rupees Eighty Thousand) only to the complainant and Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) only towards compensation for harassment and mental agony and Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) only towards litigation cost to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 8% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.
