Haryana

Ambala

CC/299/2017

Sudhir Kumar Saini - Complainant(s)

Versus

Motor Claim Manager Bajaj Allianz Gen Inss. - Opp.Party(s)

25 Jun 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

 

Consumer Complaint No	:	299 of 2017
Date of Institution	:	18.08.2017
Date of Decision	:	25.06.2018

 

Sudhir Kumar Saini S/o Late Sh.Atma Ram Saini, R/o 51 B, Karanpuri Behind B.D.Floor Mill, Ambala Cantt.

.…Complainant

 

Versus

 

1.   Motor Claim Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. (Claim), SCO No.158-159, 7^th Floor, Sector 9 C, Chandigarh.

2.   General Manager, GE Plaza, Airport Road, Yarvada Pune, 411 006.

3.   Manager, Bajaj Allianz, 167/18C, Hazara Singh Building, 2^nd Floor, Ambala Cantt.

                                                                            …. Opposite Parties

 

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

 

BEFORE:             SH.D.N.ARORA, PRESIDENT.

                             SH.PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER.

                  

For the Parties:     Mr.Kamlesh Gupta, Adv., for the complainant.

                        Mr.R.K.Vig, Adv., for the OPs.

 

ORDER

(D.N.Arora)

 

                             Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant applied for insurance of his motor cycle make Bajaj Discover (ES) bearing registration No.PB-70A-9824, Engine No.C29346, Chasis No.29450 with the OPs through Op No.3 vide policy No.OG-17-9906-1802-00133423 dated 10.12.2016 valid from 12.12.2016 to 11.12.2017. The complainant also paid a sum of Rs.1060/- as premium on 12.12.2016. Unfortunately, the motor cycle of the complainant was destroyed on fire on 04.05.2017. The complainant applied for insurance claim with the OPs but the Op No.1 has repudiated the claim of the complainant without any proper cause and reason. Whenever, the Op No.1 had issued any letter, the complainant replied for the same but to no avail. This act and conduct of the Ops amounts to deficiency in service on their part.

2.                          Upon notice the Ops appeared and filed written statement by taking preliminary objection such as no cause of action, suppressed material facts and clean hands. It is submitted that the OP had insured the two wheeler bearing registration No.PB-70-A-9824 vide policy No.OG-17-9906-1802-00133423 dated 10.12.2016 valid from 12.12.2016 to 11.12.2017 subject to policy terms and conditions.  The complainant had intimated a claim dated 16.05.2017 with the OP and submitted the claim documents in support with the claim form on account of damaged caused due to fire on 04.05.2017. The claim of the complainant was registered on 16.05.2017 as claim No.OC-18-1201-1802-00000079 by the OP. Thereafter, surveyor was appointed to conduct the spot survey to assess the loss caused to the insured vehicle who submitted the final survey report after verifying the details from the concerned RTO authority Mohali.   The report is as under:-

“a.     That Mr.Khemchand Sharma is the real owner of the insured vehicle bearing Registration No.PB-70-A-9824.

b.       That the appointed investigator had obtained the certificate of Registration of vehicle no. bearing registration no.PB-70-A-9824 from RTO Mohali. From the records of the Registration of certificate, it was observed that the insured vehicle bearing Registration No.PB-70—9824 was and is still existence in the name of Mr.Khemchand Sharma which meant that the complainant on date of alleged loss to the vehicle was not the registered owner of the insured vehicle.

c.       That the complainant Mr.Sudhir Kumar Saini had obtained the said policy bearing no.OG-17-9906-1802-00133423 to insure the said vehicle bearing registration no.PB-70-A-9824 through online portal of the answering party by providing wrong information about details of registered owner of the insured vehicle and thus misrepresenting true and material facts from this answering party. As such Sudhir Kumar Saini who lodged the complaint has no relationship with the OP’s qua the Insurance Policy which was issued and was valid from 12.12.2016 to 11.12.2017.”

There is a mandatory provision under Motor Vehicles Act to get the RC transferred/changed to the name of the complainant in accordance with the instructions issued under the Motor Vehicle Act. In the absence of the transferred of the vehicle, the relationship of the complainant was not valid. The loss if any had occurred, the same was liable to be reported to the Ops by Sh.Khem Chand Sharma and Sh.Sudhir Kumar nowhere figures in the registration certificate. As per Section 157 of MV Act, 1988 “Transfer of Certificate of Insurance clearly lays down that the transferee shall apply within fourteen days from the date of transfer in the prescribed form to the insurer for making necessary changes in regard to the fact of transfer in the certificate of Insurance and the policy described in the certificate in his favour and the insurer shall make the necessary changes in the certificate and the policy of insurance in regard to the transfer of insurance”. The Ops also wrote letters to the insured but the explanation submitted by the insured was not found satisfactory. Therefore, the claim of the complainant was repudiated by the OPs. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with costs.

3.                          In order to prove the case, the counsel for the complainant has tendered the evidence by way of affidavit Annexure C-A and documents Annexure C-1 to C-13 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, counsel for the Op has tendered the evidence by way of affidavit Annexure R-A and documents Annexure R-1 to R-16 and closed the evidence.

4.                          We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully and minutely.

5.                          Admittedly the complainant has obtained the insurance policy qua insurance of motor cycle make Bajaj (ES) from the Ops through Op No.3 for the period from 12.12.2016 to 11.12.2017 and the complainant also paid the premium of Rs.1060/- on 12.12.2016. There is no denial with regard to the loss sustained by the complainant qua the vehicle. Only dispute raised by the OPs that the complainant is not registered owner of the vehicle as he is not having any insurable interest. Admittedly, the policy has been issued to the complainant for relevant period when the accident took place before issuing of the policy or after issuing the policy, OPs must have to verify the factum of the ownership of the vehicle. The complainant has place on record copy of affidavit sworn by registered owner (Annexure C-1) with regard to the sale of the vehicle in question in favour of the complainant. The Ops have not disputed that the said affidavit or rebutted with the same with cogent evidence. Once, the policy has been issued in favour of the complainant then certainly they cannot escape from the liability to indemnify the loss suffered by the complainant. The counsel for the Ops relied upon the law laid down in case titled as M/s Complete Insulations (P) Ltd. vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. in on Civil Appeal No.2131/1994 decided 21.11.1995 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and another judgment United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Goli Sridhar & Anr. in revision petition No.2964 of 2007  decided on 22.11.2011 passed by the National Commission, New Delhi, the facts of the abovesaid judgments are distinguishable and not applicable in the present case. In the present case, the insurance company has deputed the surveyor for assessing the loss of the vehicle who after inspecting the vehicle in question he had found that the vehicle was in fully damaged condition due to fire and he assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.24,690/-  but IDV value of the insured vehicle is shown Rs.16,176/- as per the policy (Annexure C-2) and the complainant also claimed the IDV value of Rs.16,176/- in relief clause the complaint, therefore, the complainant is entitled for an amount of Rs. 16,176/- after deducting the excess clause of Rs.100/-. It is worthwhile to mention here that the insurers’ decision to reject a claim should be based on sound logic and valid grounds and the insurance companies are not supposed to earn profit in the shape of premium from the customers because it has legal responsibility to indemnify the loss if occurs during the currency year. Hence, the present complaint deserves to be accepted and the same is hereby allowed with cost which is assessed Rs.3000/-. The Ops are directed as under:-

(i)      To pay the amount of Rs.16,176/- as IDV value alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from  the date of filing of complaint till its realization.

(ii)     To pay Rs.3000/- to the complainant towards compensation for mental agony, physical harassment and cost of litigation.

10.              Let the order be complied with by the Ops within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of this order. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

 

 

Announced on: 25.06.2018               Member                President