BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.

Complaint no.158/14.

Date of instt.: 20.08.2014. 

                                                 Date of Decision: 20.08.2015.

Kapil S/o Sh.Karan Singh R/o H.No.386, Nehru Garden Colony, Kaithal.

                                                        ……….Complainant.      

                                        Versus

1. IFFCO TOKIO, General Insurance Co. Ltd. Regd. Office & IFFCO Sadan C.I. Distt. Centre, Saket, New Delhi-110017.

2. IFFCO TOKIO, General Insurance Co. Ltd. 1012/11, Opp. Indra Gandhi Public School, Dhand Road, Kaithal.

..……..Opposite Parties.

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Before:           Sh. Jagmal Singh, President.

                        Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.

     Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.

Present :        Sh. Amit Chaudhary, Advocate for complainant.

Sh. A.K.Khurania, Advocate for the opposite parties.

                       ORDER

(RAJBIR SINGH, MEMBER).

                       The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he purchased a policy of vehicle TATA 709 bearing No.HR-38D-5647 from the Ops and paid the amount of Rs.12052.59 paise valid w.e.f. 18.02.2012 to 17.02.2013.  It is alleged that the complainant has appointed special power of attorney to Nafe Singh S/o Jiya Lal R/o Village Bhana on 25.08.2011 to care the above-said vehicle Tata-709.  It is further alleged that the above-said vehicle was stolen on 29.09.2012 while the vehicle was standing under the shed at Kalayat Mandi and the matter was reported to the police on the same day and FIR No.142 dt. 01.10.2012 was lodged by the police.  It is further alleged that the complainant lodged the claim with the Ops and submitted all the necessary documents but the Ops repudiated the claim of complainant with the averments that the vehicle was purchased by one Nafe Singh S/o Jiya Lal on 25.08.2011.  This way, the Ops are deficient in service.  Hence, this complaint is filed.   

2.     Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared before this forum and filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum; that the present complaint is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties; that as per FIR No.142 dt. 01.10.2012 of P.S.Kalayat, which was registered on the statement of one Nafe Singh and he has specifically mentioned that he has purchased the TATA-409 on 25.08.2011 from the complainant.  It has been established that the vehicle in question was owned and possessed by the said Nafe Singh, whereas he was not the insured person; that the said Nafe Singh left the vehicle on 29.09.2012 un-attending without proper precautions being taken to prevent damage or loss, by parking the said vehicle in open outside the shop of Aant Ram Hukan Chand at Anaj Mandi, Kalayat, in violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops.  On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.    

3.     In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A to CW1/C and documents Ex.C1 to C3 and Ex.C5 to C15 and closed evidence on 18.05.2015.  On the other hand, the Ops tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 to R4 and closed evidence on 24.07.2015.  

4.     We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.  

5.     Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we found that the complainant purchased a policy of vehicle TATA 709 bearing No.HR-38D-5647 from the Ops and paid the amount of Rs.12052.59 paise valid w.e.f. 18.02.2012 to 17.02.2013.  Ld. Counsel for the complainant reiterated all the points mentioned in the complaint.  He argued that the complainant has appointed special power of attorney to Nafe Singh S/o Jiya Lal R/o Village Bhana on 25.08.2011 to care the above-said vehicle Tata-709.  He further argued that the above-said vehicle was stolen on 29.09.2012 while the vehicle was standing under the shed at Kalayat Mandi and the matter was reported to the police on the same day and FIR No.142 dt. 01.10.2012 was lodged by the police.  On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the Ops vehemently contends that the complainant had sold the vehicle to some other person i.e. Nafe Singh.  But as far insurance policy is concerned, it is qua the vehicle and not qua the person.  By no means insurance company can be allowed to deny the claim of a person, be it original owner or subsequent purchaser against the risk covered by insurance company.  In such cases, the only concern of the insurance company is to see that double payment is not made and the precautions the company can take in such situation is to obtain a “no objection certificate” from the person, who has not filed the claim and also indemnify bond from the person, who has filed the claim.  Since in the present case, the registered owner has filed the claim, the insurance company was only concerned to take indemnity bond from the claimant and also “no objection certificate” from the subsequent purchaser.  In this regard, we can rely upon the judgment reported as NIA Vs. Dharambir & others, IV(2012) CPJ page 158 (NC), wherein it has been held that Insurance-Vehicle met with an accident-Surveyor appointed-Loss assessed-Claim repudiated-Alleged deficiency in service-District Forum allowed complaint-State Commission dismissed appeal-Hence revision-Petitioner has failed to produce evidence to show that vehicle was sold and transferred on date of accident-Foras below rightly held that vehicle was duly registered and insured in the name of complainant-Impugned order upheld.  The said authority is fully applicable to the present case.  So, we are of the considered view that the Ops have repudiated the claim of complainant in toto wrongly which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of Ops.

6.     Thus, in view of above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the Ops to pay the insured value of the vehicle i.e. Rs.1,50,000/- to the complainant, subject to the condition of submitting the “N.O.C. or “Indemnity Bond” by the subsequent purchaser namely Nafe Singh son of Jiya Lal, r/o Village Bhana Brahmanan, Tehsil Narwana, Distt. Jind.  The Ops are also burdened to pay Rs.5,000/- (five thousand) as lump sum compensation on account of harassment, mental agony and cost of litigation charges.  However, the complainant is directed to transfer the ownership of vehicle in the name of Ops and also to submit the subrogation letter within 15 days with the Ops.  Thereafter, the order be complied within 30 days from the date of transfer of ownership and submission of subrogation letter by the complainant with the Ops, failing which, the complainant shall be entitled interest @ 8% p.a. on the awarded amount from the date of commencement of this order till its realization.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced.

Dt.20.08.2015.

                                                                (Jagmal Singh),

                                                                President.

                (Harisha Mehta),     (Rajbir Singh),       

                        Member.         Member.