Haryana

Bhiwani

CC/148/2015

Ashok - Complainant(s)

Versus

Iffco-tokio - Opp.Party(s)

B.S Sheoran

13 May 2016

ORDER

Heading1
Heading2
 
Complaint Case No. CC/148/2015
 
1. Ashok
Son of Hawa Singh H.No 3154 Sector 13 new Housing Board Bhiwani
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Iffco-tokio
Branch Manager Bhiwani
Bhiwani
Haryana
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. Rajesh Jindal PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. Anamika Gupta MEMBER
 HON'BLE MRS. Sudesh Dhillon MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
Dated : 13 May 2016
Final Order / Judgement

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.

                               

                                                                      Complaint No.:148 of 2015.

                                                                      Date of Institution: 18.05.2015.

                                                                      Date of Decision:08.08.2016

 

Ashok Ahlawat son of Shri Hawa Singh, resident of House No. 3154, Sector 13 New Housing Board Colony, Bhiwani.

 

                                                                       ….Complainant.

                                                                                            

                                        Versus

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd., Registered Office at Iffco Sadan C-1, District Centre Saket, New Delhi through its Manager, Authorized signatory.

 

                                                                      …...Opposite Party. 

 

COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT

 

 

BEFORE: - Shri Rajesh Jindal, President

                 Ms. Anamika Gupta, Member

       Mrs. Sudesh, Member

 

Present:-  Shri B.S. Sheoran, Advocate, for complainant.

     Shri Rajbir Singh,  Advocate for OP.

 

ORDER:-

 

Rajesh Jindal, President:

 

         

                    The case of the complainant in brief, is that he is owner of Motor Cycle bearing registration No. HR-16K/8035 and the same was insured with the Opposite Party vide insurance policy bearing No. 86314989 which was valid from 06.01.2014 to 05.01.2015.  It is alleged that on 07.11.2014 the aforesaid vehicle was parked in front of 337-338 HUDA City Centre near LIC Office, Bhiwani and the vehicle was stolen.  It is alleged that the matter was reported to the police and FIR No. 453 dated 07.11.2014 under Section 379 IPC was registered in P.S. Civil Lines, Bhiwani and police failed to trace out the stolen motor cycle and submitted the untraced report in the competent court.  It is alleged that the complainant requested the OP company to pay the genuine claim of the complainant but to no effect. The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the respondent, he had to suffer mental agony, physical harassment and financial losses. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and as such, he had to file the present complaint for seeking compensation.

2.                 On appearance, the OP filed written statement alleging therein that the motor cycle was got insured b Shri Amir Singh and not by complainant.  It is submitted that the OP deputed an independent surveyor and investigator Sh. Manoj K. Agnihotri, for investigations into the theft of the motor cycle in question.  Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.

3.                In order to make out his case, the counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C-5 alongwith supporting affidavit.

4.                In reply thereto, the counsel for opposite party has tendered into evidence documents  Annexure R1 &  Annexure R-2.

5.                 We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

6.                 Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint.  He submitted that the motor cycle of the complainant was stolen on 07.11.2014 and an F.I.R. No. 453 dated 07.11.2014 was registered with the concerned police station.  The complainant had purchased the said motor cycle from Amir Singh son of Ganga Shah.  The OP has failed to pay the claim to the complainant despite repeated calls.

7.                 Learned counsel for the OP reiterated the contents of the reply.  He submitted that as on the date of theft i.e. on 07.11.2014 the motor cycle was registered in the name of Amir Singh son of Ganga Shah.  The complainant has not got it transferred in his name and the insurance policy was also standing in the name of said registered owner of motor cycle Amir Singh and as on the date of theft.  As per the report dated 28.03.2015 of investigator, said Amir Singh had sold the motor cycle in question to the complainant on 19.05.2014, much before the date of theft on 07.11.2014.  Hence claim lodged by Amir Singh was repudiated vide letter dated 06.04.2015 Annexure R-2.  The present complaint of the complainant is not maintainable because as on the date of theft neither the insurance policy was transferred in the name of the complainant nor the registered cover of the vehicle was got transferred by the complainant and the complainant was not having any insurable interest in the vehicle.

8.                 The main facts of the case are not in dispute.  The contention of the OP that the complainant was not having any insurable interest as on the date of theft.

9.                 The Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition No. 2355 of 2012, Sanjiv Gupta Versus United India Insurance Company and another, decided on 14.02.2014 held as:-

In the light of aforesaid judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court and National Commission, we are of the view that if the transferee fails to inform the Insurance company about the transfer of Registration certificate in his name, and the policy is not transferred in the name of transferee, then the Insurance company can not be held liable to pay the claim in case of own damage of the vehicle.          

                     In view of the saddled legal position, the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.

Announced in open Forum.

Dated: 08.08.2016.                     

      (Rajesh Jindal)                      

President,

                                                            District Consumer Disputes

                                                            Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.

 

 

 

(Anamika Gupta)                     (Sudesh)  

     Member                            Member

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Rajesh Jindal]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Anamika Gupta]
MEMBER
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Sudesh Dhillon]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.