STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH. Appeal case No. 104/2010 1. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited (A Govt. of India Undertaking) Regd. & Head Office : Oriental House, A 25/27 Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi 110002. 2. Oriental Insurance Company Limited (A Govt. of India Undertaking), Branch office SCO No.109-110-111, Surendra Building, Sector 17, Chandigarh. Both 1 &2 through authorized signatory, Chief Regional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Regional Office, SCO No.109-111, Surendra Building, Sector-17-D, Chandigarh. …Appellants Versus Mrs. Sudha Aggarwal R/o House No.1611, Sector-4, Panchkula. --Respondent Appeal U/s 15 of Consumer Protection Act,1986 against order dated 8.2.2010 passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh. Argued by : Mrs. Veena Ashwani Talwar,advocate for the appellants Sh.Deepak Aggarwal, advocate for respondent BEFORE : Hon’ble Mr.Justice Pritam Pal, President Mrs. Neena Sandhu,Member JUDGMENT 10.1.2011 Justice Pritam Pal, President 1. This appeal by opposite parties is directed against the order dated 8.2.2010 passed by District Consumer Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh whereby complaint bearing No.1395 /2009 of respondent/complainant was allowed in the following terms ; “The OPs are directed to intimate to the complainant, within 15 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, the documents which are required to be executed by the complainant in their favour upon which the complainant would execute the said documents and would undertake to appear before the appropriate authorities as and when asked by the OPs. According to the OPs the claim has been passed for Rs.3,97,277/-. The complainant shall pay to the State Bank of Patiala, Sector 8, Chandigarh, with whom the vehicle is hypothecated, the amount in excess of Rs.3,97,277/-, if due from him. The OPs shall within 30 days of submission of documents and payment of above amount by the complainant make the payment to the State Bank of Patiala, Sector 8, Chandigarh who had advanced the loan for the purchase of the vehicle and with which the said vehicle was hypothecated. If the amount of loan due from the complainant is less than Rs.3,97,277/-, the State Bank of Patiala would make the payment of the balance amount, if any, to the complainant within 15 days of receipt of amount from OPs. If the OPs fail to comply with any of the directions issued above they would be liable to pay interest @12% per annum on the total amount of compensation as adjudged by them with effect from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 9.10.2009, till the order is complied with.” 2. In nutshell the facts culminating to the commencement of this appeal may be recapitulated thus ; The complainant on 14.5.2008 purchased a Tata Indica V2 (DLG) diesel version mini car for Rs.3,98,713/- for which he took a loan of Rs.3,48,000/- from the State Bank of Patiala, Sector 8, Chandigarh. On 21.6.2008 Mr. Ranjeesh Bansal, a relative of the complainant borrowed the car bearing temporary registration No.CH-18-T-0351from her for going to Delhi. The said relative of complainant parked the car in front of his house but the same was stolen from the parking. The matter was reported to the police as well as to the OPs and FIR was registered. Subsequently untraced report was filed on 9.10.2008 under Section 173 Cr.P.C and thereafter claim was filed with the OPs in response to which the OPs issued letter dated 29.1.2009 and sought certain documents. It was alleged that OPs deliberately sought registration certificate of the vehicle knowing fully well that the same was driven on temporary number and subsequently could not be registered in her name by the complainant in the absence of physical presence of the vehicle. Apart from transfer of registration certificate, all other documents sought by insurance company were submitted but still the claim was not paid. Hence, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, complainant filed complaint before the District Forum. . 3. On the other hand, the case of OPs before the District Forum was that the claim of the complainant was already settled for Rs.3,97,277/- and the same was delayed only due the fact that the complainant did not comply with the required formalities. It was pleaded that the transfer of registration certificate was necessary for the purpose of transfer of ownership from complainant to OPs and the same was required before the claim was paid but complainant failed to comply with the requirement and as such there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part . A prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint. 4. The District Consumer Forum after going through the evidence and hearing counsel for parties allowed the complaint as indicated in the opening part of this judgment. This is how aggrieved against the said order, opposite parties have come up in this appeal. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the file carefully. The only noticeable point of arguments raised on behalf of the appellants/opposite parties is that the complainant should have got the vehicle registered by 14.6.2008 and by not doing so she had failed to exercise reasonable care and caution qua the vehicle. The theft had taken place on 21.6.2008 and till that date the complainant had not got the vehicle registered even though the period of temporary registration had already expired and as such the complainant had violated the statutory provisions i.e Sections 39 and 43 of Motor Vehicles Act. Thus, there was breach of policy condition as the vehicle was being driven without proper registration. The counsel for insurer relied upon an authority of Hon’ble Supreme Court titled M/s Suraj Mal Ram Niwal Oil Mills (P) Ltd. Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & anr. in Civil Appeal No.1375 of 2003 decided on 8.10.2010 and then submitted that in case of breach of condition of the insurance policy, the insurer is not liable to indemnify the insured. In this regard, it was then also argued that here in the instant case insured vehicle was not got registered within the stipulated period of one month and same was brought on road and public place without valid registration certificate of the vehicle. On the other hand, the counsel for complainant has relied upon another authority of Hon’ble Supreme court titled National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Nitin Khandelwal IV(2008) CPJ 1(SC) wherein the Apex court had allowed settlement of claim on non-standard basis of a vehicle stolen and then argued that the insurance company was to pay 75% of the claim amount. 6. After going through the observataions of the Hon’ble Supreme court in the aforesaid authorities, we feel that the law laid down in M/s Suraj Mal Ram Niwal Oil Mills (P) Ltd. Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & anr.(supra) is not strictly applicable on the facts of the case in hand, inasmuch as the claim of the complainant in the cited case was repudiated on account of breach of Special condition in the cover note/insurance policy on the part of complainant/appellant ; whereas in the present case learned Counsel for appellants/insurer could not point out any such breach of special condition in the cover note of the policy of the insured vehicle which was stolen from the parking situated in front of the house. Taking into considerataion all the facts and circumstances as discussed above, we are of the considered opinion that instead of full claim complainant is entitled to be indemnified @ 75% of the claim on non-standard basis as per law laid down in the case National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Nitin Khandelwal(supra). 7. In the result, appeal is allowed partly and complainant is held entitled to 75% of the total claim of Rs.3,97,277/- which comes to Rs.297958/-. The said amount insurance company shall pay within 30 days of the receipt of copy of this order, failing which they would be liable to pay the same alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of appeal i.e. 9.3.2010 till actual realization.
| | HON'BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITAM PAL, PRESIDENT | , | |
