DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC. No. 346 of 24-12-2008<br /> Decided on : 27-07-2009 <br /> <br /> Jasmail Kaur @ Sukhdeep Kaur aged 50 years W/o Bishakha Singh mother of deceased Sukhwinder Singh, R/o Village Gill Patti, Tehsil & District Bathinda.<br /> .... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> National Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office, The Mall, Bathinda, through its Divisional Manager. ...opposite party<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM <br /> <br /> Sh. George, President<br /> Amarjeet Paul, Member <br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh. B.L. Sachdeva, Advocate, counsel for the complainant<br /> For the Opposite parties : Sh.Jaideep Nayyar,Advocate counsel, for the opposite party. <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> GEORGE, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> 1. The complainant Jasmail Kaur has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as 'Act') with the allegations that she is the mother of Sukhwinder Singh who had purchased Alto Maruti Car bearing registration No. PB-03Q-3684 from one Roshan Lal S/o Mangi Ram and the said car was comprehensively insured with the opposite party for the period from 19-03-2007 to 18-03-2008. The car was duly transferred in the name of Sukhwinder Singh, son of the complainant. On 22-09-2007 at about 9.00 p.m. this vehicle met with an accident when it was being driven by deceased Sukhwinder Singh. The matter was reported at Police Station, Thermal, Bathinda vide FIR No. 49 dated 23-09-2007. An intimation was sent to the opposite party and opposite party deputed Sh. Dinesh Kumar Goyal, Surveyor, who inspected the vehicle and he was supplied all the required documents. The complainant requested several times to the opposite party to make payment of her claim as per insurance but her request was not acceded to. She received a letter dated 25-08-2008 from the opposite party whereby her claim has been repudiated on the ground that “the Insurance Policy No. 1889614 pertaining to the above noted vehicle stands issued in the name of Sh. Roshan Lal, Street No. 3, Bibiwala Road, Bathinda, for a period w.e.f. 19-03-2007 to 18-03-2008, but the ownership as per R.C. Book on the date of accident stands in the name of Sukhwinder Singh, deceased son of the complainant. She has claimed an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- approximately on account of suffering a financial loss alongwith interest @18% P.A. from the date of accident till date and also compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- due to mental tension, agony and pains, the complainant has undergone for non-settlement of her Insurance claim alongwith an amount of Rs. 5,000/- as cost of the complaint.<br /> 2. The opposite party contested the allegations on the ground of non-maintainability, cause of action, jurisdiction to entertain the complaint; it is filed on false and factious facts; complainant is estopped to file the complaint by her own act and conduct; there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party; claim is not payable and the same repudiated as per IMT. <br /> 3. On merits also the assertions of the complainant are not admitted as correct. It has been asserted that the ownership as per R.C. on the date of accident stood in the name of Sukhwinder Singh and the Insurance policy has not been transferred in his name. Since the Insurance remained in the name of Roshan Lal, previous owner, Sukhwinder Singh had no insurable interest and as per IMT, the claim is not payable and accordingly, it has been repudiated. It has been denied that complainant has suffered any financial loss or any amount of interest or he has suffered any mental agony or pain and entitled for payment of any interest and costs as claimed.<br /> 4. Both the parties in order to prove their respective contentions have led respective evidence. <br /> 5. The complainant Sh. Jasmail Kaur has filed her affidavit Ex. C-1, photocopy of letter dated 25-04-2008 Ex. C-2, photocopy of death certificate of Sukhwinder Singh Ex. C-3, photocopy of FIR No. 49 Ex. C-4 and photocopy of R.C. of vehicle Ex. C-5.<br /> 6. To controvert the evidence of the complainant, the opposite party produced on record affidavit of Sh. V K Sharma, Sr. Divisional Manager Ex. R-1, photocopies of Acknowledgement Cards Ex. R-2 & Ex. R-3, photocopy of letter dated 25-04-2008 Ex. R-4, photocopy of letter dated 16-03-2008 Ex. R-5, photocopy of survey report Ex. R-6, photocopy of R C of vehicle Ex. R-7, photocopies of reminders Ex. R-8 to Ex. R-10 respectively, photocopy of General Regulations No. 17 of IMT Ex. R-11 and photocopy of certificate cum policy schedule Ex. R-12.<br /> 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record of the case.<br /> 8. It appears from the record that Insurance claim of the complainant who is stated to be mother of Sh. Sukhwinder Singh, registered owner of the vehicle has been repudiated by the opposite party vide letter dated 25-04-2008 Ex. C-2 on the ground that “On scrutiny, it has been revealed out that Insurance policy No. 1889614 pertaining to the above noted vehicle stands issued in the name of Sh. Roshan Lal, Gali No. 3, Bibiwala Road, Bathinda, for a period w.e.f. 19-03-2007 to 18-03-2008 but the ownership as per R.C. Book on the date of accident stands in the name of Sh. Sukhwinder Singh S/o Sh. Wisakha Singh and till date policy has not been got transferred in the name of Sh. Sukhwinder Singh, thus, the insurable interest as on date of accident i.e. 22-09-2007 does not vest in favour of Sh. Sukhwinder Singh and as per IMT the aforesaid claim is liable to be repudiated. <br /> The record reveals that except this reason, no other reason has been given by the opposite party while repudiating the Insurance claim of the complainant. It is settled principle of law that Insurance of the vehicle goes with the vehicle automatically and not remains with its previous owner. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that Sh. Roshan Lal was previous owner of the vehicle and he sold it to Sh. Sukhwinder Singh and Sh. Sukhwinder Singh became the registered owner as per registration certificate Ex. R-7. In this view of the matter, we are fortified by the observations of the Hon'ble National Commission, New Delhi in the case Shri Narayan Singh Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited IV(2007) 289(NC) wherein it has held that “ Insurance policy taken by original owner – Benefits under policy automatically accrue to new owner on transfer of vehicle – Insurance company liable to pay insurance amount alongwith interest – compensation and cost.” . We are further fortified by the observations of our own State Commission in the case titled Kulwant Singh Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., & Anr II(2009) CPJ 213 wherein Hon'ble State Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh, has expressed the view that “Since the Insurance Companies have introduced Indian Motor Tariff Regulation GR 10 and have also issued Circular in 1994 after noticing judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Complete Insultations (P) Ltd case (supra) about automatic change of insurance policy in favour of the transferee of the vehicle which was not noticed, it is, therefore, held that the appellant is entitled to claim the insurance amount as per the insurance policy from the respondents.” <br /> 9. The complainant has specifically pleaded that Sh. Dinesh Kumar Goyal, Surveyor, who inspected the vehicle also collected documents i.e. registration certificate, driving licence, insurance certificate and FIR etc., from the complainant, but he did not issue a copy of his assessment to the damaged vehicle. She has also pleaded the said surveyor instructed the complainant that she should not start repair of the vehicle without giving him proper intimation and if vehicle is got repaired without informing him, then the same is carried out on her own risk and responsibility for which neither insurer nor surveyor on behalf of the insurer will be responsible meaning thereby that the vehicle remains in damaged condition. The perusal of survey report Ex. R-6 reveals that vehicle was damaged in the accident and the tanker with which the accident occurred also got damaged. As to why the surveyor kept the assessment portion/estimate portion as blank in the survey report, remained unexplained. In the reply filed on behalf of the opposite party as well as evidence brought on record by him, the assessment/loss assessed by the surveyor has not been given. The record proves that the accident occurred and the vehicle of the complainant suffered loss which she claims to the extent of an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- approximately. The perusal of survey report Ex. R-6 reveals that the vehicle was insured for a sum of Rs. 2,62,180/- and definitely to this extent, the opposite party is liable to indemnify the complainant. Since the complainant has demanded loss to the tune of Rs. 3,00,000/- and the opposite party despite making survey of the vehicle has failed to assess the exact damage caused, therefore the opposite party is liable to indemnify the complainant to the extent of the amount the vehicle was insured.<br /> 10. In the result, the complaint is accepted. The complainant will transfer the ownership of the car in question in the name of the opposite party and the opposite party will pay Rs.2,62,180/- to the complainant alongwith interest @9% P.A. from the date of filing of this complaint till this amount is finally paid within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.<br /> 11. The copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs and the file be indexed and consigned.<br /> Pronounced :<br /> 27-07-2009 <br /> <br /> (George)<br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (Amarjeet Paul)<br /> Member <br />