Order-15.
Date-23/04/2015.
Complainant Sri Naresh Agarwal representative of M/s. Crystal Roadways by filing this complaint has submitted that one of the partner of the M/s. Crystal Roadways named as Naresh Agarwal took an insurance policy in respect of a vehicle bearing No. MHO6G-6368 from the op no.3 and validity of the said policy was from 02.02.2009 to 01.02.2010 and subsequently the said policy was renewed with op no.4 being policy No. 100600/31/6300004700 for the period from 02.02.2010 to 01.02.2011.
Subsequently the said vehicle was registered with the Office of the Secretary Regional Transport Authority, Nagaland and the vehicle was duly registered and renumbered as No. NL01G1896 by the concerned Motor Vehicle authority.
It was transferred in the name of M/s. Crystal Roadways on 26.02.2010 and complainant vide his letter dated 09.07.2010 informed the said fact to the op no.4 to incorporate or endorse necessary changes in the policy document. Thereafter the said policy was renewed time to time.
During subsistence of the aforesaid policy validity period on 24.11.2010, the vehicle met with an accident and was very badly damaged. Complainant furnished all relevant documents and papers along with claim form and on receiving the same, op acknowledged and recorded such claim which was later discharged by Motor Claim Hub No. 11452.
One Anjan Gupta, Automobile Mechanical Expert inspected the said vehicle on 29.11.2010 and he submitted his report before the Officer-in-charge Jamalpur Police Station, Burdwan under P.S. Case No. 162/2010 of the said vehicle. Complainant vide letter dated 13.12.2010 requested the ops to depute the surveyor for inspecting the accidental condition of the said vehicle and with that letter complainant enclosed estimated cost of Rs. 2,24,131/- together with copies of RC Book, Tax, CF, National Permit, Insurance, claim form duly filled with the FIR also.
Thereafter one surveyor Mr. Anjan Bose on behalf of ops surveyed the said damaged vehicle and submitted his report before the Insurance Company. But even after that getting no response redressal of the insurance claim of the said vehicle from the ops, complainant issued letter dated 03.06.2011 to the ops regarding disbursement of claim along with supportive reference and subsequently op vide letter 10.08.2011 intimated the complainant with a remark that “no claim has been lodged by you for the above vehicle, nor were you our policy holder at the material point of time of accident” and in reply to the letter dated 10.08.2011sent by the ops, complainant vide a letter dated nil received on 24.08.2011 by the op no.2 and vide letter dated 17.10.2011 clarified the ops position that the owner of the subject vehicle is Crystal Roadways and claim was filed by Crystal Roadways in which Mr. Naresh Agarwal was the beneficiaries.
But even after getting no response from the op, complainant made several representation on 04.11.2011, 16.11.2012, 05.02.2013 and 04.06.2014 for consideration of their clarification. But insurance company did nothing and on that ground the said claim was not settled and disbursed.
Fact remains that complainant made effective change in the name of ownership from Naresh Agarwal to Crystal Roadways. But op intentionally did not correct the same though registration number was corrected and in the year 2002 – 2011, 121, C.R. Avenue, Kolkata – 700073, the ops intentionally not changed by the op in respect of necessary endorsement was made vide letter dated 09.03.2011 to the office of ops. So, it clearly reflects the deficient and negligent manner of service for which complainant has prayed for redressal and other relief.
On the other hand op by filing written statement submitted that the complainant has a running business for commercial purpose and there is no sufficient ground that complainant’s business is livelihood by means of self-employment and complainant is not a consumer. Further it is submitted that complainant Crystal Roadways did not insure but one Naresh Agarwal the insured person who took policy of insurance for goods carrying for public carriers for the period 02.02.2010 to 07.02.2011.
But in the meantime without praying for changing previous status of the insured vehicle, Naresh Agarwal prayed for change of registration number and that was done and it was noted as NL01G1896 in view of Vehicle MH0G-6368 accordingly period 02.02.2010 to midnight of 01.02.2011 but the name of Naresh Agarwal was not changed and there was no such prayer.
But in the meantime the said vehicle has been transferred in the name of M/s. Crystal Roadways as claimant but Crystal Motor did not change the name at that time. So as per policy Crystal Roadways is not a consumer. Therefore, both the parties shall be governed as per contract between the both parties and shall have to avoid the definition given therein and fact remains that no claim was lodged by M/s. Crystal Roadways, policy was not M/s. Crystal Roadways at the time vehicle met with an accident on 24.11.2010. So, the claim was repudiated and in fact as per terms and conditions of the policy, they were unable to dispose the matter in favour of the complainant.
In the circumstances, this complaint should be dismissed and in fact there is no negligence and deficiency on the part of the ops.
Decision with reasons
Fact remains that in both the cases in respect of same same claim and in respect of same same policy being No. 100600/31/09/6300004700, the complaint was filed by M/s. Crystal Roadways represented by its partner Naresh Agarwal and claim is in respect of an accident made by the said vehicle during the validity period of the said policy from 02.02.2010 to 01.02.2011 and accident took place on 24.11.2010.
Fact remains that in complaint No. 04/2015 complainant prayed for directing the op for correcting the said policy by inserting the name of M/s. Crystal Roadways. But op failed and neglected to act informing that no endorsement on the caption policy after the policy made on 01.02.2011 and next policy was effective from 02.02.2010, but no prayer was made for change of name of the insured as alleged by the op. But fact remains for change or registration number of the vehicle, Naresh Agarwal prayed for change of registration number and that was done by the op. But as per RC Book, it is evident that when the number of the said vehicle was changed from MH06G-6368 to NL01G1896 the name of the owner of the vehicle became M/s. Crystal Roadways and for the sake of the argument if it is argued that Naresh Agarwal prayed for change of registration number, invariably RC Book was verified by the op and changed of registration number was made. Then invariably the name of the registered owner ought to have been changed automatically but that has not been done.
Truth is that both the cases have been filed by the M/s. Crystal Roadways but from the claim application it is found that it was filed by Naresh Agarwal as owner. But when that claim was made and when the vehicle was registered in the name of M/s. Crystal Roadways. So, invariably there was certain defect. But fact remains that during the validity period subsistence validity period of the insurance policy was 02.02.2010 to 01.02.2011 the accident took place.
When that is the fact, then it is clear that vehicle was insured and corrected number of the vehicle was there and at that time the vehicle stands in the name of owner M/s. Crystal Roadways and that was also in the RC Book. But peculiar factor is that though op refused to give any claim on the ground the claim was not submitted by the M/s. Crystal Roadways. Considering the entire fact we find that no doubt the claim application ought to have been submitted by the M/s. Crystal Roadways but that has not been done. When that is the fact, then it is clear that it was the duty of the op to report that as per RC Book M/s. Crystal Roadways is found the owner. So the form must be submitted properly but without informing that fact and also without changing the name of the owner as per RC Book, op has no doubt acted not properly.
But fact remains that the insurance policy validity period was there in respect of the change number i.e. NL01G1896 and considering that fact, we are convinced to hold that in respect of the registered vehicle being No. NL01G1896 Insurance Policy was valid when the said vehicle faced an accident on 24.11.2010 and invariably the owner of the vehicle is entitled to get claim when claim was filed but name of the owner was noted in the name of the partner of the vehicle and that matter can easily be rectified by the insurance company but insurance company did not take such step but only for the purpose of repudiating the claim.
On proper consideration of the entire materials or advancement as taken by the op for repudiation which is against the spirit of law and ops stopped to take this defence before this Forum or by any means on the ground that op changed the name of the registered number of the vehicle on the basis of the application and that application was considered after considering the RC Book which stands in the name of the M/s. Crystal Roadways but that was not changed.
Another factor is that after considering the total legal position in the particular case, it is clear that the knowledge in respect of change of ownership and number of the vehicle was known to the ops, all officers from branch manager to dealing clerk because renewed RC Book was submitted along with that application. So, no doubt there is no scope on the part of the op to say at the relevant time they were blind due to their conjunctivitis and so on careful consideration of the entire materials, legal position, copy of RC Book we are convinced to hold that policy was valid and on that date this owner of the vehicle was M/s. Crystal Roadways. But for some unknown reasons that was not noted in the said policy which is no doubt a negligent manner act on the part of the op.
So, in the eye of law it was the duty of the op to consider the claim case after necessary correction as would be in the column of the owner of the vehicle in place of NL01G1896, the names ought to have been rectified as M/s. Crystal Roadways and truth is that there is no defence on the part of the op that policy was invalid. Moreover there was no legal ground to repudiate the claim and nowadays it is found that surveyors submits many reports on payment and if payment is not made, then surveyor submits report against the insured and in fact in this case op insurance company repudiated the claim only on the ground that Naresh Agarwal name was not deleted in the policy. But Truth is that Naresh Agarwal is one of the partner of the said M/s. Crystal Roadways and if it was needed op ought to have informed Naresh Agarwal to correct the claim form to that effect but that has not been done.
In the above circumstances we are inclined to hold that the entire procedure as adopted by the op is completely illegal and uncalled for and no doubt complainant is entitled to get such benefit of the insurance policy as per their claim on proper assessment by the ops. Subject to submitting one prayer to the op that in the name of application the applicant Naresh Agarwal is noted and thereafter it shall be noted one of the partner of M/s. Crystal Roadways and most interesting factor is that without any legal justified ground, repudiation is made and in the above circumstances, we are allowing both the cases disposing of the consumer dispute on contest by passing such necessary order and directing the ops to do the needful for proper adjudication of the claim application of Naresh Agarwal the partner of M/s. Crystal Roadways.
Accordingly the complaints are allowed on contest.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
That the complaints are allowed on contest with a cost of Rs. 5,000/- against the ops.
Ops are directed to take the application from the M/s. Crystal Roadways to the effect that name of the insured is M/s. Crystal Roadways and Naresh Agarwal is one of the partner and accordingly already submitted motor claim form in respect of vehicle No. NL01G1896 treating it owners as M/s. Crystal Roadways represented by their partner Naresh Agarwal and dispose of the said claim case of the complainant within two months from the date of this order and also to rectify the said policy against insurance column by deleting the name of Naresh Agarwal and by substituting the name of M/s. Crystal Roadways.
Fact remains that there is a settled principle of law as already observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that due to transfer of the name of the insured even if it is not noted in the valid insurance policy, even then for that technical ground no claim shall be repudiated and that is the observation and findings of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in so many judgements.
Ops are directed to comply the order within two months from the said of this order and to release the assessed claim amount to the complainant within two months from the date of this order failing which for non-compliance of the Forum’s order, ops shall have to pay penal interest at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per month till full satisfaction of the decree and that penal interest is awarded is always legal in view of the ruling reported in 2015 (1) CPR 238. Even if ops are found very reluctant to comply the order, in that case, ops shall be prosecuted u/s 27 of C.P. Act 1986 for which they shall be imposed further penalty and fine.
Both the complaint cases shall be guided by this judgement.
