BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Complaint No.171/2018.
Date of instt.:30.05.2018.
Date of Decision: 22.05.2019.
Ram Sarup son of Shri Udey Ram resident of Ding Tehsil & District Sirsa.
……….Complainant.
Versus
1.IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited IFFCO Tower 4th and 5th Floor, plot No.3, Sector 29,Gurgaon-12001 (Haryana) through its Branch Manager.
2.IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Ltd. IFFCO Sadan, C-1 District Centre, Saket New Deli-110017 through its authorized signatory.
..……..Opsposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: SH.R.L.AHUJA…………………………PRESIDENT
SH.ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL …… MEMBER
MRS.SUKHDEEP KAUR………MEMBER.
Present: Shri PK Bagria Adv. for the complainant.
Shri H.S.Raghav, Adv. for the Ops.
ORDER
The complainant has filed this complaint with the averments that he is owner of car bearing registration No.HR24-W-2002 and he got the same insured vide insurance policy No.ITB-82282870, for a sum of Rs.5,84,160/-, with Ops through Joy Honda, after paying a premium amount of Rs.20,554/-. Unfortunately, the above said insured car of the complainant met with an accident on 22.03.2017 when the same was being driven by Vajinder, relative of the complainant and in this regard FIR No.171 dated 23.03.2017 under Sections 279/304-A IPC was registered at Police Station, Rawatsar and the intimation was given to the Ops. The surveyor was appointed by the Ops, who in his report has declared the total loss to the car but despite that the Ops No.2 has repudiated the claim of the complainant on 02.04.2018 on the ground that the complainant has sold the vehicle to Jaswant Singh, one year back. The complainant has not sold the vehicle to said Jaswant Singh and he has paid the full premium to the Ops. The Ops have wrongly and illegally repudiated the claim of the complainant. The act and conduct of the Ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, Ops appeared and filed their joint reply, whereby it has been submitted that present complaint is not maintainable and the complainant has got no locus standi and cause of action to file the present complaint. After receiving the intimation, the Ops have deputed its surveyor for survey of the accidental vehicle but after investigation the investigator in his report dated 12.09.2017 has mentioned that the complainant has already sold the said vehicle to Sh.Jaswant Singh, one year back and since than Sh.Jaswant Singh was using the said vehicle and was also paying the EMI’s regularly to the financer. The complainant has no insurable interest in the vehicle as it was terminated prior to the accident. The claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated vide letter dated 02.04.2018. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3. Thereafter, both the parties have led their respective evidence.
4. We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully.
5. The complainant, in order to prove his case has filed his own affidavit as Ex.CW1/A, in which he has reiterated all the averments made in the complaint. Smt.Ravina, has filed her affidavit as Ex.CW2/A, in support of the complainant. The complainant has also tendered documents such as insurance schedule as Ex.C1, repudiation letter as Ex.C2, copsy of FIR as Ex.C3, driving licence of Vijender Kumar as Ex.C4 and statement of account of complainant as Ex.C5. On the other hand, the Ops have tendered affidavit of Sh.Rajiv Ranjan, Authorized signatory, IFFCO TOKIO as Ex.RW1 in which he has deposed in terms of reply and also tendered documents such as statement of complainant as Ex.R1 and investigation report as Ex.R2.
6. It is admitted fact on record that the complainant is owner of car bearing registration No.HR24-W-2002 and he got the same insured vide insurance policy No.ITB-82282870 for a sum of Rs.5,84,160/- with Ops through Joy Honda after paying a premium amount of Rs.20,554/-. It is also undisputed that the car of the complainant met with an accident on 22.03.2017, when the same was being driven by Vajinder, relative of the complainant and FIR No.171 dated 23.03.2017 under Sections 279/304-A IPC was registered at Police Station, Rawatsar. The intimation was given to the Ops and the claim was lodged but however, the same was repudiated by the ops on 2.4.2018 on the ground that the complainant has sold the vehicle to one Jaswant Singh one year back. Ld. counsel for the complainant has contended that the complainant has not sold the vehicle to Jaswant Singh. The ops have not led any evidence to prove the fact of sale of vehicle. He has further contended that even after considering the ownership of the vehicle of the complainant, the Ld. Ilaqua Magistrate has passed the order for release of the vehicle in favour of the complainant. The counsel for the complainant has relied on the judgment reported as New India Assurance Company Limited & Anr. Vs. Brijveer Singh 2011(2)CPJ 466 .
7. On the other hand, the Ld. counsel for the ops have strongly contended that it is proved fact on record that at the time of accident, the present complainant Ram Sarup was not owner of the vehicle as he has already sold the vehicle to one Jaswant Singh. The complainant Ram Sarup, Ravina widow of Jaswant Singh have also suffered statement to this effect before the investigator. Even in the FIR the informant of the FIR, Sunil Kumar has stated this fact before the police that Jaswant Singh was the owner of this vehicle. After sale of the vehicle the insurance contract came to and, as such, there is no liability of the ops to settle and pay the claim.
8. We have considered the rival contention of the Ld. counsel for the parties and have gone through the record as well as judgment relied upon by the Ld. counsel for the complainant.
9. Undisputedly, Ram Sarup was the owner of the vehicle which was insured with the ops for the 30.12.2016 to 29.12.2017. The vehicle met with an accident on 22.3.2017 and same was fully damaged. Due intimation of accident was given to the ops and FIR No.171 dated 23.03.2017 under Sections 279/304-A IPC was registered at Police Station, Rawatsar and three persons died in the accident. The claim was lodged by the complainant with the ops and the thorough investigation was conducted by the ops.
10. The complainant in order to prove his allegation in the complaint has furnished his own affidavit as Ex.CW1/A in which he has deposed that he is owner of vehicle bearing No.HR-24-W-2002 which was insured by the ops. He is using this car for personal use. It is further deposed that, on 22.03.2017 the above said insured car met with an accident in the area of village Budhawalia, Police Station Rawatsar. The matter was reported to the ops company and they appointed their surveyor, namely Sunil Kumar and he has submitted his report, but, however, the ops no.2 repudiated the claim on 2.4.2018 on the ground that the complainant has sold the vehicle to Mr. Jaswant one year back. In fact, the complainant has not sold the vehicle to Shri Jaswant at any time. The repudiation of the claim is wrong and against the law and facts. The complainant has further furnished the affidavit of Ravina wife of Jaswant Singh, resident of Ding Mandi as Ex.CW2/A in which she has deposed that she has no concern with vehicle bearing No.HR-24-W-2002 and the actual owner of the car is Shri Ram Sarup i.e. the complainant. She has further deposed that she never made any statement before the investigating officer of Insurance Company regarding purchase of this vehicle by her. Her husband died in the accident and the investigating officer came to her house and got the signatures on some blank papers to the effect that the Insurance company will pay the compensation to her on the account of death of her husband. Insurance company has misused her blank signed paper. Her husband never purchase this vehicle at all.
11. On the other hand, the ops have tendered the affidavit of Shri Rajiv Ranjan, Authorized Signatory, IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited as RW1/A in which he deposed and reiterated as per the defence/ plea taken in the written statement. He has deposed that on receipt of intimation regarding accident of the vehicle in question alleged to have been occurred on 22.3.2017, the ops company deputed Surveyor Sh. Anil Kumar for survey of the accidental vehicle and M/s Royal Associates appointed for investigation into the matter. After investigation, said investigator submitted his report dated 12.9.2017 alongwith statement of petitioner Mr. Ram Saroop, statement of Mrs. Ravina(actual owner’s wife) and others to the ops insurance company. After going through the investigation report and statement of Sh. Ram Saroop, it has been observed that the insured Mr. Ram Saroop has sold the vehicle in question to Sh. Jaswant Singh a year back and since then Mr. Jaswant Singh was using the said vehicle for his use and paying the EMI’s to financier regularly. This fact is further admitted by the wife of Mr. Jaswant Singh through her written statement given to the investigation agency. He has further deposed that since Jaswant Singh was actual owner of the vehicle in question and the insurable interest of the insured/petitioner Sh. Ram Saroop in the vehicle had terminated prior to accident of the vehicle. The claim of the petitioner is not maintainable and has been repudiated by the ops vide letter dated 02.04.2018. The ops have tendered in their evidence the photocopsy of statement of Ram Saroop Ex.R1 and investigation report Ex.R2.
12. The perusal of the evidence of the ops reveals that they relied upon the investigation report Ex.R2 of the Royal Associates, but the ops have not furnished any affidavit of the investigator of Royal Associates, who investigated the matter in order to prove his investigation report. The ops have also placed on record the certain documents alongwith investigation report i.e. photocopy of statement of Ram Saroop vide which he has admitted the sale of vehicle to Jaswant Singh son of Rajender Kumar, but, however, the complainant Ram Saroop has furnished his affidavit Ex.CW1/A vide which he has specifically deposed that he did not sale the vehicle to Jaswant Singh and he is using the car for himself, but the ops have failed to file any counter affidavit of investigator in order to rebut the claim of the complainant and in support of their defence plea. Similarly, the investigator had attached photocopy of statement of Smt. Ravina widow of Jaswant resident of Ding Mandi, qua her admission regarding the sale of vehicle to her husband Jaswant Singh but however, said Ravina furnished her affidavit Ex.CW1/A in which she denied the ownership of the vehicle in the name of her husband and herself. Rather, she has specifically deposed that her signatures were obtained on some blank papers to the effect that the insurance company will pay the compensation to her on account of death of her husband which has been misused by the insurance company. But, however, the ops have not furnished any counter affidavit in support of their defence/plea, in order to rebut the evidence of Ravina.
13. The ops have placed on record the order of Superdari passed by Judicial Magistrate, Police Station, Rawatsar, alongwith investigation report which clearly reveals that the vehicle was released to the complainant Ram Saroop, who is the registered owner of the vehicle. There is no denial on the part of the op that complainant Ram Saroop is not registered owner of the insured car. The ops have not placed on record any document from which it could be presumed that the vehicle was to be transferred in the name of the aforesaid Jaswant Singh. The ops have also not led any other cogent evidence from which it can be presumed that the complainant was not registered owner of the vehicle on the day of the accident and the vehicle was not covered under the insurance contract of the ops and the policy was not valid on the day of accident. The ops have not further placed on record any document from which it can be presumed that after receiving the investigation report, the ops have proceeded for the cancellation of the insurance policy while terminating the insurance contract between the complainant and ops. So, it appears that the ops have arbitrary and illegally repudiated the claim of the complainant, which clearly amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the ops.
14. In view of the above discussion, we hereby allow the present complaint with a direction to the Ops to settle and pay the claim of the complainant within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order, failing which ops are liable to pay @ 7 % interest per annum from the date of filing the present complaint till its realization. The Ops are further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as compensation for harassment and also pay Rs.2000/- as litigation expenses. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in opsen Forum. President,
Dated:22.05.2019. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
Member Member
DCDRF, Sirsa DCDRF,Sirsa
