Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 240.
Instituted on : 15.05.2019.
Decided on : 13.05.2024.
Ashish son of Rajender Singh resident of village and post office Asthal Bohar, District Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd., registered office Iffco Sadan, C-1, Distt. Centre, Saket, New Delhi-110017, through its Manager.
……….Opposite party.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR.VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Devender Hooda, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Puneet Chahal, Advocate for opposite party.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case as per the complainant are that he is registered owner of vehicle no.HR-26AP-7978 and the same was insured with the opposite party vide insurance policy no.1-D40ZR8B P400 policy #50807936 for the period 24.02.2017 to 23.02.2018 for sum assured i.e. IDV value Rs.450000/-. The vehicle in question met with an accident on dated 15.02.2018 at Beri to Kalanaur Road and was badly damaged. At the time of accident Rajesh son of Amar Singh was driving the vehicle. Intimation of damage of said vehicle was given to the opposite party and opposite party appointed the surveyor to assess/investigate the said loss. Complainant lodged his claim with the opposite party alongwith all the required documents. Complainant visited the office of opposite party many times to get the claim amount but the same has not been disbursed to the complainant till date. Opposite party vide its letter dated 13.02.2019 has repudiated the claim of the complainant on false and flimsy grounds that complainant has sold the vehicle to Kuldeep Singh son of Rajinder. The complainant is registered owner of the vehicle in question and the policy of the said vehicle is also in the name of the complainant. The act and conduct of the opposite party is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to pay Rs.450000/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of accident till realisation and also to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- on account of deficiency in service & harassment and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant as explained in the relief clause.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party. Opposite party in its reply has submitted that on receipt of intimation about the accident on 15.02.2018, an independent surveyor Sh.Sunny Goel was appointed to inspect the damaged vehicle. The matter was further entrusted to M/s Royal Associates to carry out necessary investigation of reported claim. During the course of his investigation, the insured Sh. Ashish has confirmed in writing about sale of the vehicle to one Sh. Kuldeep Singh and further confirmed that the car was being used by Sh. Kuldeep till the date of accident and the car was met with an accident on 12.02.2018 on Kalanaur road. The appointed investigator also met with Sh. Kuldeep Singh and his neighbour Sh. Yogesh Kumar and obtained their statements in writing wherein they have confirmed about having this car with Mr. Kuldeep Singh from last one year. Further the investigator has observed that the reported cause of loss as per claim form is not found correct. The vehicle was intentionally damaged from back side to covert into total loss. It is also submitted that the registration certificate of the vehicle is not transferred in the name of transferee/purchaser Sh. Kuldeep Singh till the date of accident. The complainant cannot take the benefit as registered owner of the vehicle as the transfer of registration is prospective after the sale of vehicle. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A to Ex.CW3/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8 and closed his evidence on 26.11.2021. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the opposite parties has tendered affidavits Ex.RW1/A to Ex.RW3/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R12 and closed his evidence on dated 22.12.2022.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. The main contention of the insurance company is that the complainant has no insurable interest in the vehicle in question so the claim of the complainant was closed by the insurance company vide their letter Ex.R8. It is further contended that as per the investigation report, the insured Sh.Ashish has confirmed in writing about sale of the vehicle to one Sh. Kuldeep Singh s/o Sh. Mahender Singh and also confirmed that the car was being used by Sh.Kuldeep till the date of accident i.e.12.02.2018. To prove the same, opposite party has placed on record statement of complainant Ashish Ex.R2, statement of Kuldeep Ex.R3, statement of Yogesh Ex.R4, statement of Rajesh Ex.R5. We have minutely perused the documents placed on record by both the parties. As per statement Ex.R2 there is overwriting/tampering on the word ‘given’ and the same is made as ‘sold’. As per statements Ex.R3 & Ex.R5 this car was being used by Kuldeep s/o Mahender Singh. On the other hand, as per affidavit Ex.CW2/A Kuldeep son of Mahender Singh has himself confirmed that he has neither purchased the vehicle No.HR-26AP-7978 from Ashish(complainant) nor has any concern with the same. Opposite parties have not placed on record any document to prove that complainant Ashish has received any consideration amount against the sale of alleged car from the Kuldeep. Moreover policy Ex.R1 is in the name of Ashish s/o Rajender i.e. complainant and as per report of investigator name of owner of the vehicle is also Ashish. Meaning thereby insurance and RC are in the name of complainant. In this regard, we have perused the authority of Hon’ble Delhi State Commission, New Delhi in 1(2022)CPJ 52(Del.) in case titled as IFFCO-TOKIO GENERAL Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sunil & Anr. whereby Hon’ble State Commission has held that : “Where Registration certificate and Insurance is not transferred by original owner in favour of person to which it has been alleged that the ownership has actually been transferred, Original Insured person remains “Owner” for purposes of Motor Vehicles Act and claim is maintainable with respective Insurance Company-When claim was raised with appellant, Registration Certificate and Insurance was in name of Respondent no.1 and he was entitled to raise claim with Appellant-Repudiation not justified”. Moreover in the above mentioned authority the Apex Court judgment in Surendra Kumar Bhilawe Vs. The New India Assurance Company Limited reported at II(2020) CJ80(SC)=IV(2020) SLT 252= II(2020) ACC386 =AIR2020SC3149 has also been discussed in para no.8(54): “In view of the definition of ‘owner’ in Section 2(30) of Motor vehicles act, the Appellant remained the owner of the said truck on the date of the accident and the Insurer could not have avoided its liability for the losses suffered by the owner on the ground of transfer of ownership to Mohammad Illiyas Ansari”. The alleged law is fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case and the complainant is entitled for the claim being the owner of vehicle. The other plea taken by the opposite party is that the reported cause of loss as per claim form is not found correct. Mr. Rajesh confessed in his statement in writing that the car was damaged from front side, which clearly shows that the car damaged from back side intentionally to convert into total loss. We have perused the alleged statement, as per which the car was damaged from front side. On the other hand, we have also perused the statement of Kuldeep, as per which “a four wheeler was moving ahead of the vehicle of complainant and due to sudden breaks of that four-wheeler the car struck against the ahead going four wheeler and in the meanwhile a truck also hit the vehicle of complainant from back side. The car came in between both the vehicles. The four wheeler driver fled away with his vehicle and the truck driver fled away by leaving the truck at the site. There is total loss to the vehicle in question”. Meaning thereby the car was hit from both sides and there is total loss to the vehicle in question. However, the contention of opposite party that the car was intentionally damaged from back side is not proved by any authentic evidence. As the vehicle in question was totally damaged. Hence the complainant is entitled for the claim as per IDV of vehicle (Rs.450000/-) after deducting the salvage value which we have assessed as Rs.67500/- i.e. Rs.382500/-(Rs.450000/- less Rs.67500/-)
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party to pay Rs.382500/-(Rupees three lac eighty two thousand five hundred only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 15.05.2019 till its realisation and also to pay a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. However complainant is directed to move an application to the Registration Authority for cancellation of R.C. and not to ply the vehicle on road. Complainant is also directed to sale the alleged vehicle in scrap.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
13.05.2024.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
………………………………..
Tripti Pannu, Member.
………………………………..
Vijender Singh, Member.
