Haryana

StateCommission

A/870/2018

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

KRISHAN KUMAR AND CO. - Opp.Party(s)

NITIN GUPTA

21 Feb 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

Date of Institution:29.06.2018

Date of final hearing:21.02.2024

Date of pronouncement:22.02.2024

 

 

First Appeal No.870 of 2018

 

IN THE MATTER OF

 

The New India Assurance Company Limited, Divisional Office at Delhi Road, Model Town, Rohtak through its Manager.

Now represented through the duly authorized signatory of Regional Office at SCO No.36-37, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh.

…Appellant.

Through counsel Mr. Nitin Gupta, Advocate

 

Versus

Krishan Kumar & Co. Plot No.202, Hissar Road, Rohtak, through its Prop. Krishan Kumar.

….Respondent.

Through counsel Mr. Gaurav G.S. Chauhan, Advocate

 

Present:-    Mr. Nitin Gupta, counsel for the appellant.

                   Mr. Gaurav G.S. Chauhan, counsel for respondent.

CORAM:   Mr. S.C. Kaushik, Member.
 

 

O R D E R

 

S.C. KAUSHIK, MEMBER:

 

                    Present appeal has been preferred against the order dated 24.05.2018, passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak (now “District Commission”), whereby complaint filed by the complainant was allowed and opposite party (“OP”) was directed as under:-

“Accordingly opposite party is directed to pay Rs.9,00,000/- (Rs. Nine lacs only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of present complaint i.e. 31.01.2017 till its realization. Opposite party is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rs. Five thousand only) as compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant.”

 

2.                Brief facts of complaint filed before learned District Commission are that the complainant was a registered owner of vehicle/Truck bearing registration No.HR-46D-0972 and the said vehicle was insured with the OP vide policy bearing No.35380631150100000187 valid from 07.05.2015 to 06.05.2016. It was alleged that on 16.08.2016, the said insured vehicle was left by the driver at workshop of Khan Mistri, Tosham Chungi, Hansi and on 17.08.2015, the said vehicle was not found as the same was stolen. Complainant intimated the OP about said incident within time. Thereafter, he lodged the claim with OP by submitting all the necessary documents, but OP vide its letter dated 12.05.2016, repudiated the claim of complainant on the ground that the complainant has no insurable interest in the said vehicle. Thus, there was deficiency in service on the part of OP and requested for issuance of directions to OP to pay an amount of Rs.9,00,000/- IDV of vehicle alongwith interest; to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service and to pay an amount of Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.

3.                Upon notice, OP appeared before learned District Commission and filed its written version by submitting therein that according to RC (registration certificate) M/s Krishan Kuma and Co. is the owner of said vehicle but the said vehicle was sold by the company to Mr. Veena Chopra, who was the owner in possession of the said vehicle at the time of theft. It was further submitted that the complainant left the vehicle with Khan Mistri for repairs and repair was not completed in the evening and he handed over the vehicle to Mr. Hunny, who had a criminal record of theft and vehicle was stolen in front of the house of Hunny because he left the vehicle unattended. Finally, it was submitted that there was no deficiency in service on the part of OP and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                After hearing the parties, learned District Commission allowed the complaint vide its impugned order dated 24.05.2018 and directed the OP as mentioned in Para 1^st (Supra).

5.                Aggrieved from the impugned order dated 24.05.2018, OP-appellant has preferred this appeal for setting aside the impugned order passed by learned District Commission.

 6.                 Arguments have been advanced by Mr. Nitin Gupta, learned counsel for appellant and Mr. Gaurav G.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for respondent. With their kind assistance the entire records as well as original record of learned District Commission including whatever evidence have been led on behalf of the parties had also been properly perused and examined.

7.                As per the complainant-respondent he was the registered owner of vehicle/Truck bearing registration No.HR-46D-0972 and the said vehicle was insured with the present appellant-OP vide policy bearing No.35380631150100000187 valid from 07.05.2015 to 06.05.2016. On 16.08.2015, the said vehicle was left by the driver at workshop of Khan Mistri, Tosham Chungi, Hansi for repairs and on 17.08.2015, the said vehicle was not found as the same was stolen. Respondent-complainant intimated the appellant-OP about said incident within time and lodged the claim by submitting all the necessary documents, but appellant-OP vide its letter dated 12.05.2016, repudiated the claim of complainant on the ground that the complainant has no insurable interest in the said vehicle.  However, as per the version of present appellant-OP, RC (Registration Certificate) was issued in the name of M/s Krishan Kumar and Co. and said vehicle was sold by the company to Mr. Veena Chopra, who was the owner in possession of the said vehicle at the time of theft. Further, as per appellant-OP respondent-complainant left the vehicle with Khan Mistri for repairs and repair was not completed in the evening and he handed over the vehicle to Mr. Hunny (someone known of complainant), who had a criminal record of theft and vehicle was stolen in front of the house of Hunny because he left the vehicle unattended, so, the claim of complainant was rightly repudiated.

8.                It is an admitted fact that the vehicle/Truck bearing registration No.HR-46D-0972 was registered in the name of M/s Krishan Kumar and Co. (respondent-complainant) and insured with the present appellant-OP vide policy bearing No.35380631150100000187 valid from 07.05.2015 to 06.05.2016. It is also an admitted fact that on 16.08.2016, the said vehicle was left by the driver of respondent-complainant at the workshop of Khan Mistri, Tosham Chungi, Hansi for repairs and on 17.08.2015, the said vehicle was not found as the same was stolen. Intimation to appellant-OP regarding theft as well as repudiation of claim by appellant-OP vide letter dated 12.05.2016 was also admitted. The only reason for repudiation of claim by the appellant-OP is that at the time of theft, the vehicle was sold to one Mr. Veenu Chopra, but it was registered in the name of its previous owner namely M/s Krishan Kumar and Co. because the same was not transferred in the name of Mr. Veenu Chopra.

9.                From the perusal of records, it reveals that vehicle bearing registration No.HR-46D-0972 was insured with present appellant-OP vide policy No.35380631150100000187 for the period 07.05.2015 to 06.05.2016 and the vehicle was stolen on 17.08.2015. Meaning thereby, that at the time of theft the vehicle was well within the continuation of the policy. As per Section 157 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 reads as under:-

“Transfer of certificate of insurance (1) where a person in whose favour of certificate of insurance has been issued in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter transfer to another person the ownership of the another vehicle in respect of which such insurance was taken together with the policy of insurance relating thereto, the certificate of insurance and the policy described in the certificate shall be deemed to have been transferred in favour of the person to who the motor vehicle is transferred with effect from the date of its transfer.”

 Moreover, law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as “Mallamma (Dead) Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and others 2014 92) R.C.R (Civil) 617: 2014 (2) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J) 650:2014 (2) CCC 694, wherein it has been held that:-

“A Motor Vehicles Act, 1968, Sector 157-Motor Vehicles Act, 1968, Sector 103-Owner of the Vehicle transferring the vehicle-The Vehicle was duly insured-There would be deemed transfer of insurance policy in favor of new owner by virtue of Section 157 Motor Vehicles Act. 1992 (2) RCR (Civil) 489, relied.”

 

The citation relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant is not attracted in the facts and circumstances of the present case and thus does not provide any benefit to the present appellant. Thus, it is established that the insurance company (present appellant-OP) is liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle when the insurer has obtained comprehensive policy for the loss caused to the insurer. Thus, deficiency in service on the part of present appellant-OP stands proved.

10.              Thus, there is no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the learned District Commission. Impugned order passed by learned District Commission is well reasoned, based on facts and as per law. Therefore, the present appeal is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed and therefore, stands dismissed.

11.               The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing of the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt, identification and due verification as per rules.

12.               A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. This order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for perusal of the parties.

13.                Application(s), pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order.

14.                File be consigned to record room alongwith a copy of this order.

 

Pronounced on 22^nd February, 2024

                                                                                                            S.C Kaushik,

Member        

Addl. Bench-III