Haryana

Karnal

CC/663/2022

Hawa Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Dinesh Chauhan

03 Apr 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

                                                        Complaint No. 663 of 2022

                                                        Date of instt.22.11.2022

                                                        Date of Decision:03.04.2024

 

Hawa Singh aged about 56 years son of Shri Mula Ram, resident of village Sheikhpura Sohana, District Karnal. Aadhar no.9550 0086 5462.

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited, SCO no.19-20, Hafed Building, Sector-12, Karnal, through its Branch Manager.

       

                                                                         …..Opposite Party.

 

Complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.      

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

      Dr.  Suman Singh…..Member

 

 Argued by: Shri Dinesh Chauhan, counsel for the complainant.

                    Shri Naveen Khetarpal, counsel for the OP.

 

                     (Jaswant Singh, President)

ORDER:   

                

                The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’) on the averments that complainant is the registered owner of Hero Honda Plus Motorcycle bearing registration no.HR-05-AE-5606. Complainant purchased the said motorcycle from Neeraj Mongia son of Shri Krishan Lal and at the time of purchasing the said motorcycle the same was insured with the OP, vide policy no.1-85DCX1A P400 policy #: 69253652, valid from 04.10.2016 to 03.10.2017. After getting transfer said vehicle in his name the complainant met with the agent of the OP by giving requisite documents and processing fees etc and also requested to transfer the policy of the complainant. In the meanwhile, on 19.06.2017 at about 10.00 a.m., the said motorcycle has been stolen by some unknown person while same was parked in the parking premises of District Court Karnal. An FIR bearing no.0483 dated 22.06.2017 under section 379 of IPC was registered in the concerned Police Station Civil Lines Karnal in this regard. After registration of FIR the investigation was conducted by the investigating officer but the culprits as well as motorcycle in question remained untraced and the Investigating Officer submitted his final report before the Learned Illaqa Magistrate, Karnal, which was accepted by the Hon’ble Illaqa Magistrate by passing a final order. It is further alleged that complainant also sent the intimation regarding the theft of the motorcycle to the OP immediately. Complainant got lodged the claim with the OP and submitted all the relevant documents for getting the insured amount of Rs.30,000/- but OP did not pay the claim amount to the complainant  and lingered the matter on one pretext or the other. Then complainant sent a legal notice dated 02.11.2018 to the OP but it also did not yield any result. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OP appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; barred by limitation; cause of action and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that insurance company has no privity of contract with the applicant, as the policy in question still stands in the name of previous owner of vehicle namely Neeraj Mongia. The complainant purchased the motorcycle from its previous owner on 16.09.2016 and Registration Certificate was transferred in his name on 28.10.2016, as per the vehicle particular issued by concerned registering authority. The insurance policy covering the vehicle of the complainant was obtained from 04.0.2016 to 03.10.2017 in the name of Neeraj Mongia, who was the previous owner of the vehicle by concealment of facts regarding the sale of the vehicle. The complainant at any point of time not approached to the OP insurance company for transfer of policy in his name and till the date of theft i.e. 19.06.2017, the policy stands in the name of previous owner. Thus, as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy, OP is not liable to pay any claim to the complainant, so the claim of complainant has rightly been repudiated by the OP, vide letter dated 29.11.2018. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

4.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of PLA order dated 14.11.2022 Ex.C1, copy of  insurance policy Ex.C2, copy of FIR Ex.C3, copy of order dated 08.10.2018 regarding untrace report Ex.C4, copy of untrace report Ex.C5, copy of legal notice Ex.C6, copy of repudiation letter dated 29.11.2018 Ex.C7, copy of statement of Neeraj Mongia Mark-A, copy of RC Mark-B, postal receipt mark-C, acknowledgement Mark-D and closed the evidence on 21.07.2023 by suffering separate statement.

5.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP has tendered into evidence affidavit of Gurvinder Kaur General Manager Ex.RW1/A, copy of order dated PLA Ex.OP1, copy of insurance policy Ex.OP2, copy of affidavit of complainant Ex.OP3, copy of vehicle particulars Ex.OP4, copy of repudiation letter dated 29.11.2018 Ex.OP5, copy of letter dated 05.12.2017 Ex.OP6, copy of letter dated 27.07.2017 regarding no claim non-insurable interest report Ex.OP7 and closed the evidence on 03.11.2023 by suffering separate statement.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

7.             Learned counsel for the complainant, while reiterating the contents of complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant is the registered owner of Hero Honda Plus Motorcycle. Complainant purchased the said motorcycle from one Neeraj Mongia and at the time of purchasing the said motorcycle the same was insured with the OP. Before getting transfer the said vehicle in the name of complainant, on 19.06.2017 the said motorcycle has been stolen by some unknown person while same was parked in the parking premises of District Court Karnal. An FIR in this regard was got registered in the concerned Police Station. The police has submitted the untrace report with the Learned Illaqa Magistrate, Karnal and the same was accepted by the Hon’ble Illaqa Magistrate. Complainant lodged the claim with the OP and submitted all the relevant documents for getting the insured amount of Rs.30,000/- but OP did not pay the claim amount and repudiated the claim of complainant on the ground that complainant has no insurable interest and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

8.             Per contra, learned counsel for the OP while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that the present complaint is barred by limitation and liable to be dismissed on this ground. He further argued that the policy in question still stands in the name of previous owner of vehicle namely Neeraj Mongia. The complainant purchased the motorcycle from its previous owner on 16.09.2016 and Registration Certificate was transferred in his name on 28.10.2016 but the complainant did not transfer the insurance policy till the date of theft of insured vehicle. Thus, the claim of complainant has rightly been repudiated by the OP, vide letter dated 29.11.2018 and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

9.             We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

10.           The claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the OP, vide repudiation letter Ex.C7/Ex.OP5 dated 29.11.2018 on the ground, which are reproduced as under:-

.       “As per insured Mr. Neeraj Mongia, he had sold the vehicle to complainant in September, 2016.

.       Further, the insurance policy was done on 04.10.2016 in the name of Mr. Neeraj Mongia, whereas he had no insurable interest in the vehicle.

.       As per Motor Vehicle insurance Rules, the ownership transfer has to be informed to insurer after transfer is approved by RTA, which in the case has not been done till date of loss.

Extract of Motor Vehicle Insurance Rules: In case of Package policies, transfer of the “Own Damages” section of the policy in favour of the transferee, shall be made by the insurer only on receipt of a specific request from the transferee alongwith consent of the transferor.

Therefore, in absence of the mandated information to insurer, the claimant, Mr. Hawa Singh has no insurable interest in the vehicle on the date of loss.

Based on the above observation, the reported claim under the policy not tenable and is being closed as No Claim.”

 

12.           The claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the OP on the aforesaid ground. The OP has alleged that the present complaint is barred by limitation as prescribed under section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The theft of the vehicle had  took place on 19.06.2017, claim was repudiated on 05.12.2017 and the present complaint has been filed in the year of 2022 much after expiry of more than five years from the alleged loss on 19.06.2017.

13.           The complainant had filed the complaint before Learned Chairman Permanent Lok Adalat for Public Utility Services, Karnal on 20.11.2018 on the same cause of action and the same has been withdrawn by the complainant on 14.11.2022 with permission to file afresh before a competent court of law. The complainant filed the earlier complaint with Permanent Lok Adalat for Public Utility Services, Karnal on 20.11.2018 within the period of limitation and the same has been withdrawn on 14.11.2022 and permission to file the fresh complaint has been granted by the Permanent Lok Adalat for Public Utility Services, Karnal. Hence, the present complaint is not barred by limitation. Thus, the plea taken by the OP has no force.

14.           The claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the OP on the ground that at the time of theft of the insured vehicle, complainant has no insurable interest. The registration certificate of the vehicle Mark-B, is in the name of complainant. This fact has not been denied by the OP. Hence, it has been proved on file that at the time of accident, the complainant was owner of the vehicle in question. But the insurance policy is in the name of previous owner. The complainant alleged that he has submitted the application to the agent of the OP for transfer of the vehicle in question in his name but he has not placed on file any proof with regard to submission of the application with the agent of the OP. Further, complainant has placed on file statement of Neeraj Mongia previous owner of the vehicle in question, who has said in his statement that he has no objection if the complainant gets the insurance amount.

16.           It is pertinent to mention here that firstly the previous owner of the vehicle in question namely Neeraj Mongia had lodged the claim with the OP, which was closed by the OP, vide letter Ex.OP6 dated 05.12.2017 on the ground that during investigation it has been transpired that the vehicle was sold to Mr. Hawa Singh (i.e. complainant) son of Shri Mula Ram i.e. much before it was stolen and he has no insurable interest in the said vehicle. Thereafter, when the complainant has lodged the claim with the OP with regard to vehicle in question, the said claim of complainant was also closed by OP, vide letter Ex.OP5 dated 29.11.2018 on the ground that insurance policy was in the name of Neeraj Mongia (previous owner), therefore, he has no insurable interest in the said vehicle. From the above act and conduct of the OP, it appears that they do not want to release the claim to anybody else and their intention is only to reject the claim in any manner. If there was any violation in terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the OP can settle the claim of complainant on non-standard basis but they did not do so, for the reason best known to them.

16.           Furthermore, for the sake of gravity, if it is presumed that complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, in that eventuality, the claim of the complainant cannot be repudiated in toto.  In this regard, we relied upon the case laws cited in Revision Petition no.1870 of 2015(NC) decided on 14.08.2018 titled as New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Versus Thirath Singh Brar and authority of our own Hon’ble State Commission in First Appeal no.717 of 2016 decided on 6.4.2017 titled as United India Insurance Company Limited and others Versus Anshul Bansal.  In both judgments it was held that in case of any breach of warranty/condition of the policy the insurer is liable to pay 75% of admissible claim on non-standard basis.

17.           Further,  Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in case titled as New India Assurance Company Ltd. Versus Smt. Usha Yadav & others 2008 (3) RCR (Civil) 111, has held as under:-

“It seems that the Insurance Companies are only interested in earning the premiums which are rather too stiff now a days, but are not keen and are found to be evasive to discharge their liability. In large number of cases, the Insurance companies make the effected people to fight for getting their genuine claims. The Insurance Companies in such cases rely upon clauses of the agreements, which a person is generally made to sign on dotted lines at the time of obtaining policy. This is, thus pressed into service to either repudiate the claim or to reject the same. The Insurance Companies normally build their case on such clauses of the policy, but would adopt methods which would not be governed by the strict conditions contained in the policy”.

18.           Keeping in view the ratio of the law laid down in the abovesaid authorities and the facts and circumstances of the present complaint, we are of the considered view that the act of the OP amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice while denying the claim of the complainant in toto. Hence, complainant is entitled to get 75% only of the admissible claim on non-standard basis.

19.           As per insurance policy Ex.C2, the insured declared value (IDV) of the vehicle in question is Rs.30,000/-. Hence the complainant is entitled for 22,500/- i.e. 75% of the  insured value alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses etc.

20.           Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we partly allow the present complaint and direct the OP to pay Rs.22,500/- (Rs.twenty two thousand five hundred only) to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 22.11.2022 till its realization. We further direct the OP to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and Rs.5500/- for the litigation expenses. This order shall be complied within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:03.04.2024     

                                                                  President,

                                                       District Consumer Disputes

                                                       Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

(Vineet Kaushik)        (Dr. Suman Chaudhary)

                     Member                       Member