STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

First Appeal No  :        263 of 2015

Date of Institution:      19.03.2015

Date of Decision :       10.07.2015

1.     Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Model Town, Jindal Chowk, Hisar.

2.     Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, Rohtak.

3.     Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, SCO No.212-213-214, Sector 34A,Chandigarh.

                                      Appellants-Opposite Parties

Versus

Mukesh s/o Shri Krishan r/o Village Ajitpura, Tehsil and District Bhiwani.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                                                                                                                                         

Present:              Shri Gaurav Sharma, Advocate for appellants.

                             Shri Sumit Sharma, Advocate for respondent.

                                                   O R D E R

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

This Opposite Parties’ appeal is directed against the order dated December 15^th, 2014, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short District Forum), Bhiwani, whereby complaint filed by Mukesh-complainant (respondent herein) was allowed. For facilitation, the operative part of the order is reproduced as under:-

“…….Therefore, the complaint of the complainant is allowed with costs and the complainant is entitled to the sum for which vehicle was insured and the respondent is directed:-

1. To pay the insured amount of the vehicle in question alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint till its realization.
2. To pay Rs.2200/- as litigation charges.
3. The complainant is directed to hand over the letter of subrogation and keys to the company and also directed to get the R.C. transferred.”

2.      Complainant got his vehicle bearing registration No.HR61-7549, insured with Reliance General Insurance Company Limited (for short ‘the Insurance Company’)-Opposite Parties, from December 31^st, 2009 to December 30^th, 2010.  On October 26^th, 2010, the vehicle was stolen. F.I.R. No.544 (Annexure-C1) was lodged in Police Station, Bhiwani Sadar on October 31^st, 2010. The complainant gave intimation to the Insurance Company. He filed claim with the Insurance Company but it did not pay the insured amount.

3.      The complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

4.      The Insurance Company contested the complaint. It was stated that the incident had taken place on October 26^th, 2010 whereas the F.I.R was lodged on October 31^st, 2010 by one Vijay Singh.  In the F.I.R, Vijay Singh disclosed himself as owner of the vehicle.  The complainant had already sold the vehicle to Vijay Singh and as such he had no insurable interest in the vehicle.  On these premises, it was pleaded that complaint deserved dismissal.

5.      After evaluating the evidence of the parties, the District Forum allowed the complaint as detailed in paragraph No.1 of this order.

6.      In appeal before this Commission, the impugned order has been assailed on two grounds. Firstly, F.I.R. was lodged with the Police after five days and secondly, that the complainant had sold the vehicle to one Vijay Kumar, who lodged the F.I.R and disclosed himself as owner of the vehicle, so, the complainant was not entitled for the benefits of insurance.

7.      This Commission does not concur with the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. It is not disputed that the vehicle of the complainant was insured with the Insurance Company and the same was stolen during the subsistence of the policy. F.I.R. No.544 (Annexure-C1) was lodged in Police Station, Bhiwani Sadar.  Untraced Report (Annexure C-2) was submitted by the Police. Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited versus Nitin Khandelwal, IV (2008) CPJ 1 (SC), held that in the case of theft of vehicle breach of condition is not germane and the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle when the insurer has obtained comprehensive policy for the loss caused to the insurer.    

8.      Coming now to the second contention that the complainant had sold the vehicle to one Vijay Kumar.  Perusal of documents, that is, Certificate of Registration and Insurance Policy show that complainant is the owner as well as insured of the vehicle.  He has lodged the claim.  Merely stating that the complainant has sold the vehicle to Vijay Singh without leading any cogent evidence is no ground to reject the claim of complainant.  The Insurance Company by taking contradictory stand at every step is trying to escape its liability to pay the insurable benefits to the complainant.  The act and conduct of the Insurance Company stands proved on the record that the claim of the complainant is being denied on one pretext or the other and such a practice of the Insurance Company cannot be allowed to sustain.

9.      In this view of the matter, the order passed by the District Forum requires no interference. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.

10.    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.

UK