Punjab

Sangrur

CC/75/2015

Somnath - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Shri Rakesh Kumar Garg

03 Sep 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.    75

                                                Instituted on:      12.02.2015

                                                Decided on:       03.09.2015

 

Somnath son of Shri Kasturi Lal, Adarsh Mohalla, Nabha Gate, District Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.     ICICI Lombard Insurance Company Limited, Kaula Park, Near New Harman Hotel, Sangrur.

2.     ICICI Lombard, House 414, Veer Savarkar Marg, Near Siddhi Vinayak Temple, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400 025.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

 

For the complainant    :       Shri Rajesh Garg, Adv.

For OPs                    :       Shri G.S.Shergill, Adv.

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Somnath, 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 a Swift car bearing registration number PB-13-V-7938 in the year 2010 and since then he is using the same for his personal use and he got the same insured  from the OPs under policy number 3001/MI-01953745/00/000 for the period from 5.4.2014 to 4.4.2015 after paying the requisite premium of Rs.8339/-. The case of the complainant is that the car in question met with an accident on 26.6.2014 at Sohian Road, Sangrur when the same was being driven by Shri Ankit Goyal. It is further averred that the car in question was damaged in the accident and the same was sent to the  authorised dealer of the Maruti Suzuki,  who gave an estimate of Rs.1,84,920.63  for repairing the same and the claim was also lodged with the OP. The Ops deputed the surveyor who inspected the car in order to settle the claim of the complainant because the OP is bound to honour the claim of the complainant.  The complainant visited the OPs a number of times to pay the claim and also called on their toll free number 18002666, but all in vain.  It is further averred that thereafter the complainant received a letter dated 21.10.2014 from the OPs vide which the OPs have wrongly and illegally rejected the claim on the ground that the complainant has no insurable interest (vehicle was sold, RC and insurance policy was transferred till the date of loss). It is further stated that the complainant did not sell the car to anyone so, the question of transferring of RC or the policy does not arise at all. The complainant has alleged that the OPs have wrongly withheld the claim of the complainant.  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.1,84,920/- and further to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation on account of mental tension, agony and Rs.33,000/- as litigation expenses.   

2.             In reply, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is false, frivolous, vague and vexatious in nature and should be dismissed, that there was 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 Ankit Goyal son of Shri Joginder Pal, Grain Market Sangrur about 1 and half years before the accident and that there is a delay of 53 days in intimating the loss to the OP as the accident in question took place on 7.6.2014 and the intimation was given on 23.7.2014 and no DDR/FIR was lodged regarding the accident and that the complainant has got no locus standi and cause of action to file the present complaint.  On merits, it has been admitted that the vehicle in question was insured for the period from 5.4.2014 to 5.4.2015. It has been denied that the vehicle of the complainant met with an accident on 26.6.2014, but intimation of loss was received on 23.7.2014 and claim number MOTO 3949056 was allotted to the complainant and appointed Er. Pushpinder Kumar Garg, surveyor and loss assessor. The Ops also appointed Grover Associates an investigation agency to investigate the genuineness of the claim of the complainant and during the investigation the said investigator recorded the statement of the complainant and Ankit Goyal who was driving the vehicle. The complainant on 20.8.2014 made the statement to the investigator that he has already sold the vehicle to Ankit Goyal abodut 1 and ½ year before the alleged accident for Rs.3,00,000/- and Ankit Goyal also gave the statement to the investigator that he purchased the vehicle from the complainant. As such, it has been stated that since the complainant was not having any insurable interest, the claim of the complainant was repudiated vide letter dated 21.10.2014.

 

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of DL, Ex.C-3 copy of claim status communication, Ex.C-4 copy of notice, Ex.C-5 copy of insurance policy, Ex.C-6 copy of receipt, Ex.C-7 estimate, Ex.C-8 copy of bill, Ex.C-9 copy of RC and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Ops has produced Ex.OP/1 affidavit, Ex.OP/2 copy of letter, Ex.OP3/ and Ex.OP/4 copies of statements, Ex.OP/5 copy of investigation report, Ex.OP/6 copy of survey report, Ex.OP/7 copy of RC, Ex.OP/8 copy of terms and conditions, Ex.OP/9 copy of claim form, Ex.OP/10 copy of DL, Ex.OP/11 and Ex.OP/12 affidavits and closed evidence.

 

4.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties, evidence produced on the file and written submissions and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

5.             It is an admitted fact that the vehicle of the complainant bearing registration number PB-13-V-7398 was comprehensively insured with the OPs under policy number 3001/MI-01953745/00/000 for the period from 5.4.2014 to 4.4.2015, a copy of which on record is Ex.C-5.  Further it is also admitted fact that the vehicle of the complainant met with an accident on 26.6.2014 while the same was being driven by Ankit Goyal son of Joginder Pal, who was also having a valid driving license. It is further an admitted fact that the complainant gave an intimation about the accident of the vehicle in question and on receipt of the intimation, the Ops appointed Shri Pushpinder Kumar Garg, Surveyor and Loss Assessor, who assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.80,355/- vide his report dated 16.09.2014, a copy of which on record is Ex.OP1/6.  But, thereafter the Ops repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that during investigation it was found that the complainant Som Nath has no insurable interest as the vehicle in question has already been sold to one Ankit Goyal about one and half years before the alleged accident.  The learned counsel for the Ops has also referred the statements of Som Nath complainant and Ankit Goyal, copies of which are on record as Ex.OP1/3 and Ex.Op1/4.  A bare perusal of the statements Ex.OP1/3 and Ex.OP1/4, which are dated 20.08.2014 show that the car in question was sold by the complainant to Shri Ankit Goyal about one and half years back from 20.08.2014 meaning thereby the car was allegedly sold on 20.02.2013, but we are unable to accept such a contention of the Ops that the car in question was sold to Ankit Goyal by the complainant on 20.2.2013, as the same is still existing in the name of the complainant Somnath and further the Ops also paid the insurance claim to the tune of Rs.28,768 against the accident of the car in question on 10.12.2013 under claim number MOTO 3464477.  There is no explanation from the side of the Ops that if the car in question had already been sold on 20.2.2013 by the complainant Som Nath to Ankit Goyal , then why the claim of Rs.28,768/- was paid on 10.12.2013 to the complainant Som Nath.  As such, it seems that the statements of Som Nath complainant and Ankit Goyal have been written by the investigator himself in Hindi language after getting signed from them on blank papers and as such, these documents carries no value and at all are not helpful to the case of the OPs.  Moreover, it is obvious that if a person who has filed the complaint before this Forum to get the claim will not give any statement that he has sold the car in question to any one.  Further, it is a matter of common knowledge that if a person who has sold the vehicle to any one and after that it suffers accident, then the purchaser will be responsible at all and the seller of the vehicle would not file the complaint as done in the present case in hand.  As such, we feel that the OPs have wrongly and illegally repudiated the rightful claim of the complainant. The learned counsel for the complainant has cited Ishwar Lal Chaudhary and another versus National Insurance Co. Ltd. and others 2009(2) AICJ 635, wherein the Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that the insurance company cannot deny its liability on the ground that the insured had no insurable interest in the vehicle as the registered owner continued to be ostensible owner of the vehicle so long as registration is not changed from his name to the transferee and liability of registered owner continued. Therefore, the registered owner had insurable interest in the motorcycle and policy and certificate of insurance are binding on the insurance company.  The Insurance company will be liable despite sale of the vehicle.  In the present case also, it seems that the OPs are liable to pay the insurance claim to the complainant and have wrongly and illegally repudiated the claim of the complainant.

 

6.             Now, coming to the point of quantum of compensation payable to the complainant.  The complainant has claimed an amount of Rs.1,84,920/- on the basis of the estimate given by M/s. Max Autos, Sangrur for repair of the car in question.  But, on the other side, we have on record the report dated 16.9.2014, Ex.OP1/6 of Er. Pushpinder K.Garg, Surveyor and Loss Assessor, who has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.80,355/-, as such we cannot ignore the report of the surveyor in the circumstances of the present case.  In the circumstances, we feel that the ends of justice would be met if the claim to the tune of Rs.80,355/- is allowed to be given to the complainant. It is further made clear that the OPs have themselves produced on record the copy of registration certificate of the vehicle, Ex.OP1/7, which clearly reveals that the vehicle in question is in the name of the complainant Som Nath.  Moreover, it is not the case of the Ops that the vehicle was transferred in the name of the alleged purchaser of the vehicle i.e. Shri Ankit Goyal.  Further Ex.OP1/9 is the claim form for motor vehicle, which also shows that the claim was lodged by the complainant Som Nath himself.  Further in another case titled as The Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. Ajmer versus Hazi Mohd. And others 2000(2) RLW 724, it has been held by the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court that owner means a person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered. As in the present case, the vehicle is registered in the name of the complainant Som Nath.  As such, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant Som nath is entitled to get the claim.

 

7.             The insurance companies are in the habit to take these type of projections to save themselves from paying the insurance claim. The insurance companies are only interested in earning the premiums and find ways and means to decline claims. The above said view was taken by the Hon’ble Justice Ranjit Singh of Punjab and Haryana High Court in case titled as New India Assurance Company Limited versus Smt. Usha Yadav and others 2008(3) R.C.R. 9 Civil) 111.

 

8.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct Ops to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.80,355/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of repudiation of the claim i.e. 21.10.2014 till realisation.  We further direct the Ops to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.10,000/- in lieu of consolidated amount of compensation and litigation expenses. 

 

9.             This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A  copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                September 3, 2015.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                              (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member

 

 

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member