Punjab

Sangrur

CC/1/2015

Ashok Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Lombard Gen.Ins. - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Harpal Singh Cheema

18 May 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                               

 

                                                Complaint No.    001

                                                Instituted on:      01.01.2015

                                                Decided on:       18.05.2015

 

Ashok Kumar son of Shri Lachman Dass, resident of Ward No.02, House No.350, Paras Ram Colony, Bhikhi, Tehsil and District Sangrur.

                                                        ..Complainant

                                        Versus

1.             ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. ICICI Lombard House, 414-Veer Savarkar Marg, Nar Sidhi Vinayak Temple, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400 025 thorugh its General Manager.

2.             ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. Kaula Park, Sangrur through its Manager.

3.             Mahindra & Mahindra Finance Services Ltd. 2^nd Floor, Shimla Complex, Mansa through its authorised signatory.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

 

For the complainant    :       Shri Jarnail Singh, Adv.

For OP No.1&2         :       Shri G.S.Shergill, Adv.

For OP No.3              :       Shri Naresh Juneja, Adv.

 

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Ashok Kumar,  complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant purchased one Ford Figo car having model number 2011 bearing registration certificate number PB-31-J-5652 after raising a loan from OP number 3 and the car in question was got insured from OPs number 1 and 2 for the period from 30.09.2013 to 29.09.2014 vide cover note number PR10934393 for Rs.3,95,817/-. It is further averred that the complainant fell ill and he came under some depression and as such handed over his car to one Amrik Singh son of Balam Singh, resident of Bhikhi for himself for his work and Amrik Singh was also using the car in question. It is further averred that to save Amrik Singh from harassment from police or from other officers, also gave an affidavit, but the complainant did not receive any amount from Shri Amrik Singh. 

 

2.             It is further averred that in the mid night of 3.9.2014 at about 10 PM, when Amrik Singh was coming back from Sarhind to Bhikhi and when he reached near Sidhu Memorial School on Cheema-Sunam Road, then a cow came in front of the car and the driver of the car tried to save the cow, as such the car went towards right hand side and struck with a tree and damaged totally.  The air bags of the car also opened and damaged. The persons passing there took Amrik Singh out of the car and admitted him in the Civil Hospital Sunam for his treatment and DDR number 32 dated 6.9.2014 was also got registered.  Thereafter the complainant duly intimated the OPs and the Ops advised the complainant to click photographs and sent to Manoj Kumar.  It is further averred that Shri Manoj Kumar also instructed to get the car repaired from any workshop, as such the complainant sent the car to Sangrur Maruti Centre, Patiala Road, Sangrur, who told that the car has been totally damaged and the complainant got prepared the estimate from it by paying an amount of Rs.18,000/-.  The estimated value of total damages is approximately Rs.7.00 Lacs, but the IDV of the vehicle is Rs.3,95,817/-.  The complainant approached the Ops so many times, but no claim was paid, despite serving of legal notice dated 15.11.2014. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.3,95,817/- along with interest @ 18% per annum and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

3.             In reply filed by Ops number 1 and 2, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is false, vague, frivolous and vexatious in nature, that there is no insurable interest in the policy/vehicle in question at the time of alleged accident as the vehicle has already been sold by the complainant to Amrik Singh son of Balam Singh, resident of Bhikhi before accident i.e. 12.3.2014 and no information to this effect has been given to the OPs nor the policy was transferred in the name of Amrik Singh, which is a clear cut violation of the policy terms and conditions, that this Forum has got no territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint and that the complaint is not maintainable.  On merits,  it is admitted that the vehicle in question was insured with the OPs for the period from 30.09.2013 to 29.09.2014. It is denied that the complainant fell ill and the vehicle was handed over to Amrik Singh for his work. Rather the complainant had sold the vehicle to Amrik Singh on 12.3.2014 and in this regard the complainant had executed the agreement and affidavit in favour of Amrik Singh. It is further stated that after receiving the information regarding accident of the vehicle in question, the OPs appointed Shri Anuj Khosla, surveyor and loss assessor for assessing the loss.  On 5.9.2014 the said surveyor visited Sangrur Maruti Centre Sangrur and inspected the vehicle and declared the vehicle as total loss. The Ops also appointed Sahni Associates, Investigators to investigate the claim, who visited at the spot and recorded the statement of complainant and Amrik Singh, who was driving the vehicle and during investigation it was found that the complainant had already sold the vehicle to Amrik Singh on 12.3.2014 and neither any intimation regarding the selling of the vehicle nor the policy was transferred in the name of purchaser at the time of accident, as such, there was no insurable interest of the complainant in the policy.  As such, the Ops repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 16.12.2014.  Any deficiency in service on the part of the ops has been denied.

 

4.             The OP number 3 did not file the written reply, as such, the defence of OP number 3 was struck of by the order of this Forum.

 

5.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 copy of cover note, Ex.C-2 copy of DDR number 32, Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-6 copies of estimate bills, Ex.C-7 copy of claim form, Ex.C-8 copy of RC, Ex.C-9 copy of DL of Amrik Singh, Ex.C-10 copy of DL of Ashok Kumar, Ex.C-11 copy of cheque, Ex.C-12 copy of legal notice, Ex.C-13 copy of postal receipt, Ex.C-14 copy of letter dated 16.12.2014, Ex.C-15 affidavit, Ex.C-16 to Ex.C-18 photographs, Ex.C-19 to Ex.C-20 copies of postal receipts and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs number 1 and 2 have produced Ex.OP1&2/1 affidavit, Ex.OP1&2/2 to Ex.OP1&2/3 copies of affidavits, Ex.OP1&2/4 copy of investigation report, Ex.OP1&2/5 survey report and Ex.OP1&2/6 copy of terms and conditions and closed evidence.

 

6.             We have very carefully perused the pleadings of the parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons.

 

7.             It is an admitted fact that the complainant purchased the car in question after raising the loan from OP number 3 and got the same insured from OP number 2 for the period from 30.09.2013 to 29.09.2014 vide cover note number PR10934393 for Rs.3,85,817/-.  It is also not in dispute that the vehicle in question met with an accident on 3.9.2014 while the same was being driver by Shri Amrik Singh and the vehicle was totally damaged in the said accident.  It is also an admitted fact that the complainant intimated the OPs about the accident of the vehicle in question and the OPs appointed the surveyor and investigator to investigate the claim in question.  It is also not in dispute that the Ops repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that the complainant has no insurable interest as the vehicle had already been sold to Amrik Singh at the time of alleged accident.

 

8.             In the present case, the learned counsel for the Ops number 1 and 2 has contended vehemently that the complainant has filed a false and frivolous complaint and has further contended that the complainant had already sold the vehicle on 12.3.2014 to one Amrik Singh son of Balam Singh, resident of Ward No.11, Bhikhi, but Shri Amrik Singh neither got transferred the vehicle in question nor the policy nor intimated the same to the Ops.   The learned counsel for the OPs has further contended that the Ops have rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant as the complainant was not having any insurable interest, as the complainant had already sold the vehicle on 12.3.2014 to Amrik Singh, as is evident from the copy of agreement, which is on record as Ex.OP1&2/2, which itself clearly reveals that the complainant sold the vehicle for Rs.3,90,000/- and it is also mentioned that purchaser of the vehicle shall also pay the remaining instalments of loan to OP number 3. Ex.OP1&2/3 is the affidavit of Ashok Kumar complainant, which clearly revels that he sold the vehicle to Amrik Singh resident of Bhikhi, which is duly attested by the Notary Public, Mansa.  The same fact is further supported by the confidential report of Sahni Associates which is on record as Ex.OP1&2/4. In the survey report dated 24.11.2014 by Anuj Khosla, it is also mentioned in the column remarks that ‘as per investigation report, there is no insurable interest hence, loss is recommended for repudiation.”.  We may mention here that the complainant has not uttered a single word in the complaint nor filed any rejoinder to say that he never sold the vehicle in question to Amrik Singh resident of Bhikhi nor the complainant has stated that the affidavit in question was not executed by him.   No rejoinder is on the file to deny the allegations of the OPs about selling of the vehicle by the complainant to Shri Amrik Singh.  Further the complainant has not produced any sworn affidavit of Amrik Singh to the effect that he did not purchase the vehicle in question.  Under the circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that it is a clear cut case, where the complainant sold the vehicle to Amrik Singh resident of Bhikhi, as such, he has no insurable interest, as no intimation was ever given to the OPs about the sale of the vehicle in question.  The Hon’ble National Commission in N. Gopal versus National insurance Company Ltd. IV(2014) CPJ 370(NC) has held that petitioner has no insurable interest and also there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the opposite party, if the insured vehicle has been sold and at the time of accident neither was the petitioner registered owner of vehicle nor had the insurance policy been transferred to his name as per provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.  The same view has also been taken by the Hon’ble National Commission in Didar Singh and another versus Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. III(2014) CPJ 1 (NC).    As such, we are of the considered opinion that in the present case also, the complainant has no insurable interest as he had already sold the vehicle in question to one Amrik Singh son of  Shri Balam Singh resident of Bhikhi, Distt. Mansa on 12.3.2014.

 

9.             In view of our above discussion, we find no merit in the case and the same is dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                May 18, 2015.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                                (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                    Member

 

                                                          

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                   Member