PER SHRI. S.B.DHUMAL - HON’BLE PRESIDENT :
1) In brief present dispute is as under –
That the Complainant M/s. Bagalkot Udyog Ltd. is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, and is carrying on business of manufacturing cement. The Complainant purchased certain vehicles for the use of their Directors and Senior Officers. Opposite Party No.1 is a Insurance Company and Opposite Party No.2 is Head Office of Opposite Party No.1, having registered/head office at Kolkatta.
2) It is submitted by the Complainant that prior to 30/09/2005, the Complainants were conducting business in the name of M/s. Kanoria Industries Ltd. which was subsequently changed to M/s. Bagalkot Udyog Ltd. The said change has been approved at the General Body Meeting of the Shareholders of the Company held on 30/09/05. Change of name was intimated to the Registrar of Companies who approved the change in the name of Company and had issued a fresh Certificate of Incorporation on 19/10/2005. The Complainant also informed change of name of the Company to the Opposite Party by letter dtd.08/12/2005.
3) It is submitted that on 24/12/2006, the Complainant’s vehicle Ford Ikon Car, bearing Registration No.MH-01-GA-9144, met with an accident on Peddar Road, in Mumbai, due to which the car was badly damaged. The Complainant had obtained insurance policy for the said car from the Opposite Party. After the accident the Complainant immediately lodged complaint with the Gamdevi Police Station. However, due to oversight, the said accident is recorded to have taken place on 26/12/2006 and this error has been continued throughout.
4) After the accident the Complainant lodged their claim with the Opposite Parties on 04/01/2007 by submitting duly filled Motor Claim Form and submitting necessary details. The Complainant had submitted original estimate for the repairs of the said car of M/s. Shaman Ford which shows the estimate of repairs which is almost equal to the IDV and therefore, is considered to be total loss. Thereafter, Opposite Party appointed Surveyor. The Surveyor submitted reports. However, copy of the said report was not made available to the Complainant. The Complainant had submitted formal claim on 04/01/2007 and thereafter has been following up with M/s. Shaman Ford, who has orally informed the Complainant that the vehicle is beyond repair and therefore surveyor has been informed about the total loss of the vehicle. The said damaged salvage was lying in the garage of M/s. Shyaman Ford, till July, 2007 i.e. over six months after which the same is moved to the Complainant’s Rabale factory site and is lying there.
5) The Complainants were waiting for the Opposite Party to process their claim and make the payment as per the IDV. All the details asked by the Opposite Party were provided from time to time. However, nothing was informed to the Complainant. So the Complainant sent a reminder letter dtd.19/05/2007 to the Opposite Parties. The Opposite Parties vide their letter dtd.26/06/07 repudiated claim of the Complainant on the ground that “As per the RC Book the registered owner of the subject vehicle is M/s. Kanoria Industries Ltd. and till the date of accident registered ownership of the vehicle has not been changed.” The Complainant has produced copy of the rejection letter dtd.26/06/2007 alongwith complaint at Exh.‘E’.
6) Then the Complainant approached Customer Grievance Cell of the Opposite Parties vide their letter dtd.28/06/2007 and brought to the notice of the Opposite Parties that there was merely a change in the name of the Company which was already intimated to the Opposite Parties. But there was no reply from the Grievance Cell of the Opposite Party. Therefore, Complainant approached Chairman of the Opposite Parties vide their letter dtd.10/08/2007 with request to intervene in the matter since the Claim was rejected on a flimsy ground. After a reminder letter dtd.24/09/2007, the Head Office vide their letter dtd.30/08/2007 referred the matter back to the concerned Regional Office assuring to initiate appropriate action for redressal of the grievance. Customer Department of the Opposite Parties vide their letter dtd.01/01/08 requested Complainants to submit details of the transfer of the assets from the name of M/s. Kanoria to the name of M/s. Bagalkot, which was clearly irrelevant request. By letter dtd.15/01/2008, recently Regional Office also rejected the claim of the Complainant on the same ground. According to the Complainant, Opposite Parties have rejected the Complainant’s genuine claim on false and flimsy ground and therefore, Complainant has filed this complaint. The Complainant has requested to direct Opposite Parties to settle claim amount of Rs.3,64,142/- alongwith interest @ 15% p.a. from 24/02/2007 till realization of entire amount. The Complainant has also prayed to direct Opposite Parties to pay a sum of Rs.21,045/- to the Complainant which is paid as parking charges by the Complainant to Shaman Motors Pvt. Ltd. The Complainant has claimed compensation of Rs.50,000/- on account of fallow-up letters and number of visits and Rs.25,000/- towards cost of this complaint.
7) Alongwith complaint the Complainant has produced copies of the documents at Exh.‘A-1’ to Exh.‘K’ and affidavit of Shri. Suresh Sharma, Director of the ComplainantCompany in support of the complaint.
8) Opposite Party No.1 & 2 have filed their common written statement and thereby resisted claim of the Complainant contending that complaint is false, frivolous and without cause of action and therefore, deserves to be dismissed with cost. It is submitted that the present complaint is not maintainable under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act.
9) According to the Opposite Party, admittedly the insurance policy was not taken in the name of present complainant. The vehicle insured with the Opposite Parties stood in the name of M/s. Kanoria Industries Ltd. and therefore, the Complainant have no right to claim any compensation from the Opposite Parties in respect of the said vehicle as the policy belongs to M/s. Kanoria Industries Ltd. In view of the above fact, the Opposite Parties have rightly rejected claim of the Complainant and therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties.
10) It is submitted that even according to the Complainant, policy taken in the name of M/s. Kanoria Industries Ltd., and therefore, the vehicle belong to the said Company and as such, the Complainant have no right to claim under the said policy and cannot claim compensation from Opposite Parties. The rejection of claim is just, proper and lawful and therefore, complaint is liable to be dismissed. They have denied Complainant’s prayer for settlement of claim at Rs.3,64,142/- and other reliefs claimed by the Complainant, submitting that complaint be dismissed with cost.
11) The Complainant has filed rejoinder and thereby denied allegations made in the written statement. The Complainant has filed application for interim relief under Sec.13(3-B) of the Consumer Protection Act, and thereby prayed that pending disposal of complaint Complainant be allowed to sell off the salvage or order the Opposite Parties to collect the salvage and have it sold. The Opposite Parties have filed reply to the aforesaid interim application and thereby resisted claim of the Complainant. The Complainant has not pressed hearing of the interim application. The Complainant has filed written argument. The Opposite Party has produced documents i.e. True copy of R.C. Book, and true copy of the insurance policy given to the Kanoria Industries Ltd. Opposite Party has filed affidavit of evidence and written argument. We heard oral submissions of Ld.Advocate Shri. Anand Gawand for the Complainant and Ld.Advocate Shri. S.S. Singh for the Opposite Party and the matter closed for orders.
12) Following points arises for our consideration and our findings thereon are as under -
Point No.1 : Whether the Complainant has proved deficiency in service onthe part of Opposite Parties ?
Findings : No
Point No.2 : Whether the Complainant is entitled for reliefs as prayed for ?
Findings : No
Reasons :-
Point No.1 :- It is case of the Complainant that M/s. Bagalkot Udyog Ltd. is a Company Registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and is carrying on business of manufacturing of cement. The Complainant purchased certain vehicles for the use of their Directors and Senior Officers. It is submitted by the Ld.Advocate for the Complainant that prior to 30/09/05, the Complainants were conducting business in the name of M/s. Kanoria Industries Ltd. which was subsequently changed to M/s. Bagalkot Udyog Ltd, in the Annual General Meeting of the Shareholders of the Company held on 30/09/2005. Resolution was passed to change the name from M/s. Kanoria Industries Ltd. to M/s. Bagalkot Udyog Ltd. Subsequently change of name was intimated to the Registrar of Companies who approved the change in the name of Company and has issued a fresh Certificate of Incorporation on 19/10/05. According to the Complainant change in the name of Company was even intimated to the Opposite Parties vide letter dtd.08/12/2005.
It is case of the Complainant that for their vehicle Ford Ikon car bearing Registration No.MH-01-GA-9144 they had obtained insurance policy from the Opposite Party. Alongwith the complaint at Exh. ‘A-1’, the Complainant has produced copy of the insurance policy schedule bearing policy No.250800/31/06/6100000325. It is private car policy and package in respect of vehicle No.MH-01-GA-9144. Policy is for the period from 30/04/06 to 29/04/07. The Opposite Party has also produced certified true copy of the said policy. Name of the insured mentioned in the insurance policy is M/s. Kanoria Industries Ltd. It is the case of the Complainant that during validity period of the aforesaid policy on 24/12/04, the Complainant’s aforesaid Ford Ikon Car of MH-01-GA-9144 met with an accident on Peddar Road in Mumbai and due to which the car was badly damaged. The Complainant immediately lodged complaint with the Gamdevi Police Station and on 04/01/2007 lodged claim with the Opposite Party by submitting duly filled Claim Form and also submitting necessary documents. It is submitted that the Complainant had submitted original estimate of M/s. Shaman Ford which shows that estimate of repairs which is almost equal to the IDV. The Opposite Party had appointed Surveyor and said Surveyor submitted report to the Opposite Party but copy of report of survey was not available to the Complainant. The said damaged salvage was lying in the garage of M/s. Shaman Ford till July, 2007 and thereafter the Complainant moved the same to their Rabale factory site. The Complainants were waiting for the processing of claim by Opposite Parties. Reminder letter was sent and thereafter Opposite Party vide their letter dtd.26/06/2007 rejected claim of the Complainant on the ground “As per the RC Book the registered owner of the subject vehicle is M/s. Kanoria Industries Ltd. and till the date of accident the registered ownership of the vehicle has not been changed”. The Complainant has produced copy of the rejection letter dtd.26/06/2007 alongwith complaint at Exh.‘E’. In the letter it is further mentioned by the Opposite Party that “as on the date of accident M/s. Bagalkot Udyog Ltd. does not have Insurable Interest and hence, we do not have any liability for payment of the claim to M/s. Bagalkot Udyog Ltd.” It appears that after rejection of letter the Complainant made representation to the Grievance Cell and also to the Chairman of the Opposite Parties to reconsider the decision of rejection of the claim but, the Complainant’s requests was not considered. It is submitted by Ld.Advocate for the Complainant that on flimsy ground the Opposite Party has rejected claim of the Complainant and it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party.
Ld.Advocate for the Opposite Party has submitted that even according to the Complainant prior to 30/09/2005, the Complainants were conducting business in the name of M/s. Kanoria Udyog Ltd. and subsequently by passing resolution in General Body Meeting of the Shareholders of the Company held on 30/09/2005, approval was given for change of the name of the Company from M/s. Kanoria Industries Ltd. to M/s. Bagalkot Udyog Ltd. After passing aforesaid resolution this change of name was intimated to the Registrar of the Companies who approved the change in the name of Company and he had issued a fresh Certificate of Incorporation of Company on 19/12/2005. Alongwith complaint the Complainant has produced copy of resolution passed in the General Body Meeting of the Shareholders and copy of fresh Certificate of Incorporation issued by the Registrar of the Companies. From the documents produced by the Complainant it is clear that Registrar of the Company approved change of name of the Company and issued fresh Certificate of Incorporation on 19/10/2005. Ld.Advocate for the Opposite Party has submitted that after change in the name of the Company approved by the Registrar of the Companies about in the month of April, 2006, M/s. Kanoria Industries Ltd. approached to the Opposite Party No.1 for private car policy for their Ford Ikon Car bearing No.MH-01-GA-9144 and after receipt of necessary premium from M/s. Kanoria Industries Ltd. Opposite Party issued insurance policy/private car policy bearing No.250800/31/06/6100000325 which was for the period from 30/04/2006 to 29/04/2007. The Complainant and the Opposite Parties have produced copies of the aforesaid policy. It is submitted by the Ld.Advocate for the Opposite Parties when change of name from M/s. Kanoria Industries Ltd. to M/s. Bagalkot Udyog Ltd. was approved by the Registrar of Company by issuing a fresh Certificate of Incorporation on 19/10/2005 then in that case it was necessary for the Complainant to apply for insurance coverage for their Ford Ikon Car in the name of M/s. Bagalkot Udyog Ltd. However, insurance policy for the said car was applied and obtained in the name of M/s. Kanoria Industries Ltd. by making payment of premium in the name of M/s. Kanoria Industries Ltd. Ld.Advocate for the Opposite Party has submitted that on the date of accident M/s. Kanoria Industries Ltd. was a registered owner of the said Fort Ikon Car. In support of his contention the Ld.Advocate has produced certified copy of Certificate of Registration of motor vehicle and pointed out that in the Certificate of Registration, name of M/s. Kanoria Industries is recorded as a registered owner. It is vehemently submitted that on the date of accident M/s. Kanoria Industries Ltd. was a registered owner of the Ford Ikon. Insurance policy of the Ford Ikon for the period 30/04/2006 to 29/04/2007 was in the name of Complainant. The name of the insured is recorded as M/s. Kanoria Industries Ltd. in aforesaid insurance policy. Under the said policy present Complainant M/s. Bagalkot Udyog Ltd. had submitted claim for reimbursement of the loss. Copy of the Claim Form submitted by the Complainant is produced at Exh.‘D’ alongwith complaint. As on the date of accident the Complainant was not registered owner of the car in question and policy was also not in the name of the Complainant. Opposite Party has rightly rejected claim of the Complainant M/s. Bagalkot Udyog Ltd. and therefore, according to the Ld.Advocate for the Opposite Party, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties.
According to the Complainant, prior to 30/09/2005 the Complainant were conducting business in the name of M/s. Kanoria Industries and by passing resolution in the General Body of Shareholders held on 30/09/2005, it was decided to change name of the Company from M/s. Kanoria Industries Ltd. to M/s. Bagalkot Udyog Ltd. After passing resolution change was informed to the Registrar of Companies and the Registrar of the Companies approved the same and issued a fresh Certificate of Incorporation on 19/10/2005. It is case of the Complainant that after the change in the name of Company was approved by the Registrar of Companies. Intimation of the same was given to the Opposite Party vide their letter dtd.08/12/2005. When name of Company was changed form M/s. Kanoria Industries Ltd. to M/s. Bagalkot Udyog Ltd. In the year 2005 it was expected on the part of the Complainant to apply for insurance policy for their vehicle in the name i.e. M/s. Bagalkot Udyog Ltd. However, insurance policy issued by the Opposite Party is in the name of Kanoria Industries Ltd. Not only this but it appears from the true copy of the Certificate of Registration of motor vehicle produced by the Opposite Party that during relevant period of accident name of M/s. Kanoria Industries Ltd. is recorded as a owner of said vehicle. It appears that Certificate of Registration of motor vehicle was valid from 02/05/2003 to 01/05/2008. In the Certificate of Registration there is no mention of the name of the Complainant M/s. Bagalkot Industries Ltd. After damage to the vehicle which took place in the accident on 24/12/06, the Complainant M/s. Bagalkot Udyog Ltd. submitted claim form under the aforesaid policy issued in the name of M/s. Kanoria Industries Ltd. to the Opposite Party. Considering the aforesaid facts decision taken by the Opposite Party of rejection of Complainant’s claim for reimbursement of the loss in respect of the said vehicle appears to be just and proper. Therefore, we hold that the Complainant has failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties. Therefore, point no.1 answered in the negative.
Point No.2 :- During the relevant period of accident name of M/s. Kanoria Industries was recorded as registered owner of the said Ford Ikon Car, besides that name of M/s. Kanoria Industries Ltd. was also recorded as Insured in the insurance policies taken from the Opposite Party for the said car. Therefore, decision of rejection of Complainant’s claim taken by the Opposite Party is just and proper hence, the Complainant is not entitled for any claim, any amount or any other relief from the Opposite Party. Hence, point no.2 is answered in the negative.
For the reasons discussed above, complaint is liable to be dismissed. Hence, we pass following order -
O R D E R
i.Complaint No.151/2008 is dismissed with not order as to cost.
ii.Certified copies of this order be furnished to the parties.
