Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/379/2023

RAM SWAROOP - Complainant(s)

Versus

IFFCO TOKYO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD - Opp.Party(s)

KANWAR CHAUDHARY

05 Nov 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/379/2023
Date of Institution	:	29/07/2023
Date of Decision	:	5/11/2024

 

Sh. Ram Swaroop S/o Sh.Masudi Ram, age 80 Years R/o # 81, Rampura Teh- Bawani Khera, Bhiwani, Haryana 127032 through Suresh Kumar (Authorised Representative).

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     IFFCO TOKYO General Insurance Company Ltd., IFFCO Bhawan, Plot No.2 B & C, Sector 28-A 3rd Floor Madhya Marg, 160002 Chandigarh through Branch Manager.

2.     IFFCO Sadan C-1, District Center, Saket New Delhi 110017 through Managing Director.

3.     Berkeley Hyundai (Berk Motar Car LLP) C/o Plot No.24, Industrial Area Phase 1 Chandigarh through Branch Manager.

… Opposite Parties

4.     Anita Devi D/o Gurnam R/o House No 1500, Phase 1, Ramdarbar Industrial Area Chandigarh.

… Proforma OP

 

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

 

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Vivek Gupta, Advocate proxy for Sh. Kanwar Chaudhary, Advocate for complainant
	:	Sh. Vaneet Mittal, Advocate for OP-1
	:	OP-2 deleted vide order dated 6.10.2023
	:	OP-3 ex-parte
	:	None for  OP-4

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by Ram Swaroop, complainant against the aforesaid opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs).  The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the allegations, as projected in the consumer complaint, that the complainant is the registered owner of an Hyundai Grand i10 car bearing registration No.HR-16R-9836 (hereinafter referred to as “subject car”) as per registration certificate (Annexure C-1/CW-1) and the same was got insured from OP-1/insurer vide policy (Annexure C-2/CW-1) valid w.e.f. 13.4.2022 to 12.4.2023 (hereinafter referred to as “subject policy”).   Earlier, on 2.11.2022, complainant had orally agreed to sell the subject car to Ms.Anita/OP-4 (hereinafter referred to as the “purchaser”) by taking margin money and at that time it was agreed upon between the parties that the final payment would be made by the purchaser once the complainant provides NOC to her.  After obtaining NOC dated 21.11.2022 (Annexure C-4/ CW-1) from the Registering Authority, Bhiwani when the complainant approached the purchaser for delivery of subject car, she refused to buy the same, owing to personal reasons, as a result of which the oral agreement was terminated.  In this manner, the subject car could not be sold by the complainant to the purchaser and even in the RC, the ownership continued in the name of complainant.  Unfortunately, on 16.1.2023, the subject car met with an accident at Sector 9 chowk, Chandigarh when the same was being driven by his relative namely Parwinder Singh, who was possessing a valid driving licence (Annexure C-5/CW-1). Thereafter the complainant had taken the subject car to the authorized dealer/OP-3 for repair and he personally intimated OP-1/insurer for processing the insurance claim.  The authorized surveyor of the insurer visited the workshop for final inspection report and all the formalities were completed by the complainant by handing over the copy of RC, insurance and driving licence etc. for processing the accident/insurance claim.  After about one month, OP-3 verbally informed the complainant that OP-1/insurer had repudiated the insurance claim and OP-3 is not in a position to repair the subject car and the complainant was  asked to take the same from the workshop by paying the parking charges of ₹10,000.50 alongwith towing charges of ₹700/- and copies of bill/receipt are Annexure C-6/CW-1 and Annexure C-7/CW-1. Accordingly, the complainant paid the said charges to OP-3 and took away the subject car.  After taking delivery of the subject car, when the complainant approached OP-1 to know about the reason for repudiation of his claim and thereafter also visited the local office of OP-1 personally, he could not get any satisfactory response.  The complainant continuously contacted OP-1 for about three months, but, no response was given by OP-1 for the repudiation of his claim.  Thereafter the complainant received the repudiation letter 2.5.2023 (Annexure C-8/CW-1) and came to know that the OP/insurer had repudiated his claim on flimsy ground that the complainant has already taken NOC from the RTO, as such he is not entitled for any claim.  Thereafter the complainant got the subject car repaired from the local market and paid the repair charges to the tune of ₹1,89,080/- from his own pocket and the copy of bill is Annexure C-9/CW-1.  In this manner, the aforesaid act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. OPs were requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2. OP-1 & OP-4 resisted the consumer complaint and filed their separate written versions.
3. In its written version, OP-1, inter alia, took preliminary objections of maintainability, cause of action and concealment of material facts.  However, it is admitted that the subject car was got insured by the complainant with the answering OP w.e.f. 13.4.2022 to 12.4.2023, but, as he had sold the subject car to OP-4/Ms. Anita and had obtained the NOC from the concerned authority, the complainant lacked any insurable interest in the subject car, being not the registered owner at the time of accident and his claim was rightly repudiated by the answering OP vide repudiation letter dated 2.5.2023.  On merits, the facts as stated in the preliminary objections have been reiterated. The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
4. In her written version, OP-4, inter alia, took preliminary objections of maintainability and cause of action. However, it is admitted that the answering OP is not the owner of the subject car as she had never taken delivery of the same from the complainant and the complainant is still its registered owner.  On merits, the facts as stated in the preliminary objections have been reiterated. The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
5. In view of the no objection given by learned counsel for the complainant, name of OP-2 was deleted from the array of OPs vide order dated 6.10.2023.
6. Since OP-3 refused to accept notice of the complaint, it was presumed to be served and when OP-3 did not turn up before this Commission, despite proper service, it was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 21.11.2023.
7. Despite grant of sufficient opportunity, rejoinder was not filed by the complainant to rebut the stand of the OPs.

2. In order to prove their case, contesting parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and also gone through the file carefully, including written arguments on record.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the contesting parties that the complainant is the registered owner of the subject car, as is also evident from the RC (Annexure C-1/CW-1) and the same was got insured by him from OP-1 vide subject policy, which was valid w.e.f. 13.4.2022 to 12.4.2023 and the complainant had earlier orally agreed to sell the subject car to OP-4 i.e. the purchaser  for which he had also obtained the NOC from the concerned authority and later on the subject car had met with an accident and the claim lodged by the complainant was repudiated by OP-1/insurer on the ground that he had already sold the subject car to OP-4 and thereafter the complainant had got the subject car repaired from outside, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if OP-1/insurer is unjustified in repudiating the genuine claim of the complainant and the complainant is entitled to the reliefs prayed for in the consumer complaint, as is the case of the complainant, or if OP-1/insurer has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant and the consumer complaint of the complainant, being false and frivolous is liable to be dismissed, as is the defence of the OPs.
   2. In the backdrop of the foregoing admitted and disputed facts on record, one thing is clear that the entire case of the contesting parties is revolving around the fact if the complainant was the registered owner of the subject car at the time of accident and he is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for or if the complainant had already sold the subject car to OP-4 and he was not having any insurable interest in the same at the time of accident.
   3. So far as the defence of OP-1/insurer that the complainant had already obtained the NOC from the concerned authority indicating that he had sold the subject car to the purchaser/OP-4 is concerned, as the purchaser has already submitted in her written version that she had not taken the possession of the subject car due to her personal reasons and the complainant is still the registered owner of the subject car, to our mind by simply obtaining the NOC of the subject car will not automatically prove its sale or transfer in favour of the alleged purchaser till the same is actually transferred in her name.  Moreover, issuance of NOC for the transfer of vehicle’s registration certificate is an essential step in the sale process, but, it does not itself constitute completion of the sale.  Sale is generally considered complete, when all necessary formalities and legal requirements have been fulfilled. 
   4. Moreover, when it stands proved on record that even the possession of the subject car was not delivered by the complainant to the alleged purchaser and the oral sale was terminated as she refused to accept the possession of the subject car, even after issuance of the NOC, and the RC is still in the name of the complainant till date and the insurance certificate was also in the name of the complainant at the relevant time, to our mind OP-1/insurer is unjustified in repudiating the claim of the complainant on flimsy ground that he was not having any insurable interest at the time of accident for the simple reason that NOC was obtained by him from the concerned authority.
   5. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is safe to hold that the complainant has successfully proved the cause of action set up in the consumer complaint and the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed against OP-1/insurer.
   6. Now coming to the quantum of amount, though the surveyor had assessed the loss to the subject car to the tune of ₹2,54,511/- whereas its IDV is ₹2,48,050/- only, but, since the complainant himself has claimed only ₹1,89,080/- as repair charges in pursuance to the repair bill (Annexure C-9/CW-1), which is much less than the IDV as well as the loss assessed by surveyor, it is safe to hold that OP-1/ insurer is liable to pay the said amount to complainant alongwith interest and compensation etc.
4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is hereby partly allowed and OP-1 is directed as under :-

1. to pay ₹1,89,080/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum (simple) from the date of repudiation of the claim i.e. 2.5.2023 onwards.
2. to pay ₹25,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment;
3. to pay ₹10,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

5. This order be complied with by OP-1, within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy thereof, failing which the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above shall carry penal interest @ 12% per annum (simple) from the date of expiry of said period of 45 days, instead of 9% [mentioned at Sr.No.(i)], till realisation, over and above payment of ligation expenses.
6. Since no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice has been alleged or proved against OP-3 & OP-4, the consumer complaint against them stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
7. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.
8. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

5/11/2024	[Pawanjit Singh] President
	[Surjeet Kaur] Member