Haryana

Karnal

CC/96/2017

Rajwanti Saroha - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

N.R. Rana

16 Oct 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No.96 of 2017

                                                         Date of instt. 10.03.2017

                                                         Date of decision:16.10.2018

 

Rajwanti Saroha wife of Shri Narender Saroha resident of House no.225, Rajivpuram, Phoosgarh Road, Gali no.3, Karnal.

                                                                                                                                                                …….Complainant       

                                        Versus

 

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. having its office at 1^st floor, Sohan Singh Complex, near Railway Crossing, Shastri Nagar, Ludhiana (Punjab) and having its Divisional Office at Karnal Sec.12.

 

                                                              …..Opposite Parties.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.            

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh.Vineet Kaushik ………..Member

              Dr.Rekha Chaudhary…….Member

 

 Present  Shri N.R. Rana Advocate for complainant.

               Shri Naveen Khaterpal Advocate for opposite party.

 

(Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:                    

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that complainant is registered owner of a motorcycle Twister bearing registration no.HR-05AB-2435 which was purchased by the complainant from Shri Sunny Bedi. The said motorcycle was got insured by the OP, vide policy no.P-400 policy no.90522514, valid from 31.12.2014 to 30.12.2015. On 16.03.2015 at about 6.00 p.m. the brother in law of the complainant namely Krishan Saroha standing the said motorcycle outside Paras Public School, and gone inside the school to see the Principal and when after 20 minutes, the brother in law of complainant came back, then he was surprised to see that the motorcycle was not there and inspite of the best effort, the said motorcycle could be traced out. It is alleged that just after stolen of the motorcycle the brother in law of complainant has informed the concerned police by making a telephonic call on 100 number. It is further alleged that the RC of the vehicle in question had been given to the authority concerned for the transfer, when the motorcycle in question was stolen which was taken back from the authority but the same still stands in the name of previous owner. On the complaint moved by the brother in law of the complainant an FIR bearing no.0160 was registered  on 26.03.2015 in Police Station Sadar Karnal. Complainant lodged the claim with the OP against the theft of the motorcycle but OP did not pay any claim and ultimately repudiated the claim of the complainant, vide letter dated 12.10.2015 without any rhyme or reason. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OP, who appeared and filed written version raising preliminary objections with regard to jurisdiction; mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties; cause of action; complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that the complainant herself is at fault because entitlement of claim is subject to terms and conditions of insurance policy. Since the said policy of insurance was obtained for insurable interest by Sunny Bedi son of Swaran Singh resident of Karnal. The complainant purchased the motorcycle from insured on 3.2.2015 and registration certificate was not transferred in her name. The motorcycle was stolen on 16.03.2015. It is further pleaded that complainant had no insurable interest because policy of insurance has not been transferred in the name of complainant and complainant has not paid requisite fees for getting policy transferred in her name. As per terms and conditions of policy of insurance and settled law of land, OP is not liable to pay the claim, so claim of the complainant rightly repudiated by the OP, vide letter dated 12.10.2015. Hence 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.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CA and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 and closed the evidence on 30.11.2017.

4.             On the other hand, OP tendered into evidence affidavit of Rajiv Rajan Ex.RW1/A, affidavit of R.N.Sharma Ex.RW2/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.O12 and closed the evidence on 12.07.2018.

5.             We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

6.             The learned counsel for the complainant argued that complainant had purchased motorcycle Twister from Sunny Bedi. The said motorcycle was got insured by the OP. On 16.03.2015, said motorcycle was stolen. Intimation regarding theft of motorcycle was given to the OP and FIR was got recorded in Police Station Sadar, Karnal. The OP repudiated the claim of the complainant without any rhyme/reason. The complainant submitted the documents with Registration Authority for transferred the motorcycle in her name and due to accident she taken back due to theft of the motorcycle from concern authority, as document i.e. RC required for claim and prayed for acceptance of the complaint.

7.             On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP argued that alleged motorcycle was purchased by complainant on 03.02.2015 and insurance was not transferred in the name of the complainant. The complainant had no insurable interest because the policy in question has not been transferred in the name of the complainant. As per the terms and conditions of the insurance and settled law of land, OP is not liable to pay the claim. So the claim of the complainant has rightly been repudiated by the OP on 12.10.2015. The counsel for OP relied upon following judgments:

Civil Appeal no.2131 of 1994, date of decision 21.11.1995 case titled as M/s Complete Insultations (P) Ltd. Versus New India Assurance Co.Ltd.; Revision Petition no.3110 of 2014, decided on 17.11.2015 case titled as National Ins. Co.Ltd. Versus Jitendra Kr. Singh; Revision Petition no.2454 of 2009, decided on 8.5.2015 case titled as United India Ins. Co. Ltd. Versus Jagpal Singh and Revision Petition no.426 of 2017, decided on 13.03.2009 case titled as United India Ins. Co. Ltd. Versus V.C. Deenadayal & Another.

8.             Admittedly, the motorcycle was stolen on 16.03.2015 and at that time, the said motorcycle was insured with OP. The said motorcycle was purchased by the complainant from Sunny Bedi. As per Ex.C2, the motorcycle was transferred on 26.02.2015 in the name of complainant. No proof/record of depositing the RC with registration authority was produced by the complainant. The insurance policy was not transferred in the name of complainant in the stipulated period. Authorities produced by the OP are fully applicable to the present case.

9.             Thus, as a sequel to above discussion, we find no merits in the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 16.10.2018

                                                                        President,

                                                           District Consumer Disputes

                                                           Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

 

                     (Vineet Kaushik)     (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary) 

                        Member                       Member