Haryana

StateCommission

A/12/2015

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

JAGDISH CHANDER - Opp.Party(s)

B.S.TAUNQUE

09 Sep 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      12 of 2015

Date of Institution:    07.01.2015

Date of Decision :     09.09.2016

1.     The New India Assurance Company Limited, Regional Office, SCO No.36-37, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh through its Manager (Legal).

2.     The New India Assurance Company Limited, having its Divisional Office at Karnal through its Divisional Manager, Karnal.

                                      Appellants-Opposite Party No.1

Versus

1.      Jagdish Chander s/o Sh. Molu Ram, Resident of Village Hathalana, Tehsil and District Karnal.

Respondent-Complainant

2.      Shri Suresh Kumar s/o Sh. Ranjit Singh, Resident of House No.3812, Shiv Colony, Gali No.9, Kaithal Road, Karnal.

                                      Respondent-Opposite Party No.2

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                                                                                                              

Present:               Shri B.S. Taunque, Advocate for appellants.

                             Shri Nonish Kumar, Advocate for respondents.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

The New India Assurance Company Limited (for short ‘the Insurance Company’)-Opposite Party No.1, is in appeal against the order dated November 19^th, 2014 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karnal (for short ‘the District Forum’), whereby complaint filed by Jagdish Chander-complainant/respondent No.1, was allowed directing the Insurance Company to pay Rs.4,25,000/-, that is, the Insured Declared Value (IDV) of the Canter-Eicher, bearing registration No.HR-45-7644, which was damaged in an accident.

2.                The vehicle No.HR-45-7644 owned by the complainant, was insured with the Insurance Company for the period April 8^th, 2011 to April 7^th, 2012 for Rs.4,25,000/-, vide Insurance Policy Exhibit C-3. It was damaged in the accident on October 20^th, 2011. First Information Report (FIR) No.92 (Exhibit C-6) was lodged in Police Station Kumarsain, District Shimla on the same day, that is, October 20^th, 2011. The Insurance Company was informed.  The complainant filed claim with the Insurance Company but the same was repudiated vide letter dated October 13^th, 2012 (Annexure A-13) stating that the complainant had sold the vehicle to one Suresh Kumar on 10^th June, 2011, that is, prior to the date of accident, so the complainant was not entitled to the benefits of insurance.  Aggrieved thereof, the complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

3.                The Insurance Company contested the complaint by filing written version wherein it reiterated the fact stated in the repudiation letter and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                After evaluating the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum vide impugned order allowed the complaint and issued direction to the Insurance Company as detailed in paragraph No.1 of this order.

5.                Shri B.S. Taunque, learned counsel for the appellants-Insurance Company has urged that the complainant had sold the vehicle to Suresh Kumar on June 10^th, 2011, that is, prior to the date of accident. In support, reference was made to agreement dated 21^st October, 2011 (Exhibit O-8) which was executed between the complainant and Suresh Kumar and the statement of Jagdish Chander (Exhibit O-5), made to the Investigator of the Insurance Company, wherein it was stated that vehicle was sold to Suresh Kumar. So, the Insurance Company had rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has also urged that as per the report (Annexure A-12) of the Surveyor, the net loss suffered by the vehicle was assessed at Rs.83,362/-. 

6.                On the other hand Shri Nonish Kumar, learned counsel for the complainant-respondent No.1, has argued that the accident took place on 20^th October, 2011; the Registration Certificate of the vehicle (Exhibit C-1) was in the name of Jagdish Chander on the date the vehicle met with the accident. The agreement (Exhibit O-8) purported to have been entered between Jagdish Chander and Suresh Kumar is dated October 21^st, 2011, that is, after the date of accident. Since the alleged agreement was executed on October 21^st, 2011, there was no extraneous for Jagdish Chander and Suresh Kumar to enter into the agreement of sale that the vehicle was sold on June 10^th, 2011 because the accident had taken place on October 20^th, 2011 and by entering into this agreement, the complainant was not to gain anything. Learned counsel for the complainant has also referred to the alleged statement of Jagdish Chander recorded by the surveyor of the Insurance Company wherein the words that he has sold the vehicle to Suresh Kumar, were added after scribing the statement.

7.                The question now arises as to whether the complainant is entitled to the benefits of insurance or not?

8.                Undisputedly, the Registration Certificate was in the name of Jagdish Chander on the date of accident and also till date. Not only that, after the expiry of the Insurance Policy in question, the vehicle is being insured by Jagdish Chander in his name, as stated by the learned counsel for the complainant at bar and also referred to in the impugned order. 

9.                So far as the agreement (Exhibit O-8) is concerned, same was executed after the date of accident, that is, 20^th October, 2011. There was no point in getting the said agreement executed by the complainant in favour of Suresh Kumar after the accident, particularly when the Registration Certificate and the Insurance Policy was in the name of complainant. He was not to gain anything by getting the said agreement executed after the date of accident. If such pleas are accepted, then it would be very easy for anybody to get rid off the liability arising out of the accident.  It will of course be a relevant circumstance if the agreement of sale of the vehicle set up, as a ploy to dishonestly defeat the right of someone or it is aimed at circumventing the liability.  That eventuality is not there in this case. In view of this, the Insurance Company cannot derive any benefit out of the agreement (Exhibit O-8), purported to have been entered into between Jagdish Chander and Suresh Kumar. Since the Registration Certificate of the vehicle was in the name of Jagdish Chander on the date of accident, the Insurance Company was liable to identify the owner.  Support to this view can be had from the judgment rendered by Hon’ble National Commission in Banowarilal Agrawalla v. National Insurance Company Limited and Another, IV (2005) CPJ 110 (NC).

10.              As regards the quantum of compensation, the surveyor in his report (Annexure A-12) stated that the loss was to the extent of Rs.83,362/-, whereas the complainant has placed on the record bills/invoices of Rs.4,52,118/- issued by Haryana Motors, Karnal, that is, the authorised dealer of the manufacturing company of the vehicle. However, the IDV of the vehicle was Rs.4,25,000/- to which the complainant is entitled to and the District Forum has rightly awarded that amount to the complainant.

11.              In view of the above, the impugned order does not require any interference. Hence, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits.

12.              The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

 

 

Announced 09.09.2016

Urvashi Agnihotri Member

Nawab Singh President

CL