Haryana

StateCommission

A/1031/2015

ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

KIRAN PAL - Opp.Party(s)

RAM AVTAR

28 Apr 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      1031 of 2015

Date of Institution:        03.12.2015

Date of Decision :         28.04.2016

 

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, through its Regional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Regional Office, Jagadhri Road, Ambala Cantt.

                                      Appellant/Opposite Party

Versus

 

Kiran Pal son of late Suresh Pal, Resident of House No.2514, Sector-12, Sonipat.

                                      Respondent/Complainant

 

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                                                                      

Argued by:           Shri Ram Avtar, Advocate for appellant.

                             Shri Ravinder Pal Singh, Advocate for respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited (for short ‘the Insurance Company)-Opposite Party, is in appeal against the order dated September 17^th, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonipat (for short ‘the District Forum’), whereby complaint filed by Kiran Pal-complainant/respondent, seeking compensation with respect to his insured car was accepted. For facilitation, the operative part of the order is reproduced as under:-

“…we hereby directed the respondent to make the payment of Rs.2,52,000/- (Rs.two lacs fifty two thousand) to the complainant Kiran Pal alongwith interest at the rate of 09% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint till realization and further to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.5,000/- (Rs.five thousands) for rendering deficient services, for causing unnecessary mental agony and harassment. However, the complainant is hereby directed to submit letter of subrogation, indemnity bond and affidavits for the purpose of transfer of RC of the vehicle in question in the name of the respondent insurance company.”

2.      Car bearing registration No.HR-09G-0040, Bolero make, owned by the respondent was insured with the Insurance Company for the period November 30^th, 2013 to November 29^th, 2014, vide Insurance Policy Exhibit C-2. The Insured Declared Value (IDV) of the car was Rs.2,52,000/-. During the intervening night of March 2^nd/3^rd, 2014 the car was stolen in the area of Adarsh Nagar, Sonipat. F.I.R. No.63 (Exhibit C-4) was lodged in Police Station Civil Lines, Sonipat on the same day, that is, March 3^rd, 2014. The Insurance Company was also informed.

3.      The Police submitted untraced report (Exhibit C-6) and the same was accepted by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonipat, vide order dated December 15^th, 2014 (Exhibit C-8).  The respondent filed claim with the Insurance Company but the same was repudiated vide letter dated December 23^rd, 2014 (Exhibit C-11) on the ground that the car was sold by the respondent to one Upnesh Ranjan Gaur about five years before the date of theft but neither the Certificate of Registration nor the Insurance Policy were got transferred in the name of purchaser, that is, Upnesh Ranjan Gaur. So, the respondent was not entitled to the benefits of insurance. Aggrieved thereof, the respondent filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

4.      The Insurance Company contested the complaint by filing reply while reiterating the ground taken in the repudiation letter, mentioned above.

5.      The solitary submission of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company is that the car was sold by the respondent to Upnesh Ranjan Gaur, about five years before the date of theft however the Certificate of Registration and the Insurance Policy were not transferred in favour of the above said purchaser.  So, the respondent was not entitled to the benefits of insurance.

6.      The contention raised is not tenable. Indisputably, on the date of theft of the car, the respondent was its registered owner and the Insurance Policy was also in his name. No cogent evidence of sale of car by the complainant has been produced on record. Therefore, the Insurance Company cannot deny the benefits of insurance to the respondent. The Insurance Policy was issued in favour of the Registered Owner of the car, therefore, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the insured amount. No case for interference in the impugned order is made out.

7.      In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits.

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

 

Announced 28.04.2016

Diwan Singh Chauhan Member

B.M. Bedi Judicial Member

Nawab Singh President

CL