Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.

                                                                   Complaint No. : 164.

                                                                   Instituted on     : 12.03.2020.

                                                                   Decided on       : 12.08.2024.

Neeraj age 30 years son of Sh. Kaptan Singh r/o H.No.1939/35 Janta Colony Rohtak.

                                                                   ………..Complainant.

                                                Vs.

National Insurance Company Ltd., Narain Complex, Civil Road Rohtak through Divisional Manager.

……….Opposite party.

COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.

BEFORE:  SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.

                   DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.

                   DR.VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER.

Present:       Sh.R.K.Sharma, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh. A.S.Malik, Advocate for opposite party.

                                      ORDER

NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:

1.                Brief facts of the case as per the complainant are that he is registered owner of vehicle no.HR-12Y-1500 and the same was insured with the opposite party  vide insurance policy no.55270031186160086206 for the period 13.05.2017 to 12.05.2020. On 06.09.2019 the complainant was going from BahuJholri to Rewari by driving his above said vehicle and near NangalBoondi, tyre of vehicle burst and vehicle  became imbalance and turned turtle in the ditches and was completely damaged. The vehicle was taken to the service centre and complainant immediately informed the opposite party. Opposite party deputed the surveyor and he surveyed the vehicle and it was found that the vehicle is completely damaged. Complainant submitted the claim with the opposite parties and completed all the formalities as required by the opposite party and also submitted all the necessary documents. But till today, the amount of claim has not been paid to the complainant on the ground of violation of terms and conditions of the policy. Infact, there is no violation of terms and conditions of the policy.  The complainant had purchased the vehicle from its previous owner and got the RC of vehicle transferred in his name and after purchasing the same, the complainant informed the opposite party and requested them to change the name of owner in their record.  Hence the opposite party is liable to pay the amount of claim to the complainant. But despite repeated requests of the complainant, nothing has been paid to the complainant. The act and conduct of the opposite party is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service.  Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to pay Rs.540950/-alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of accident till realisation  and also to pay an amount of Rs.200000/- on account of deficiency in service & causing financial loss to the complainant and also to pay Rs.33,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.  

2.                After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party. Opposite party in preliminary objections of its reply has submitted that they deputed Er.Dinesh Gupta Insurance Surveyor and Loss Assessor to assess the loss of insured vehicle. He assessed the loss of Rs.216608/- on repair basis subject to liability as per policy’s terms and condition. He further remarked that: “Said policy is depreciation reimbursement policy. The insurance policy is in the name of Mr. Ram Karan Sharma and vehicle is registered in the name of Mr. Neeraj, as such there is no insurable interest and insurance company may deny their liability against the said claim”.  On merits, it is denied that after purchasing the insured vehicle from the previous owner, the complainant informed the opposite party and requested them to change the name of owner in the name of their record.  It is submitted that opposite party has no contract with the complainant regarding the insured vehicle. So no liability regarding the loss to pay the complainant. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

3.                Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.C/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C10 and closed his evidence on 21.04.2022.  On the other hand, ld. counsel for the opposite party has tendered affidavit Ex.R1, documents Ex.R2 and closed his evidence on dated 25.11.2022.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material aspects of the case very carefully.

5.                In the present case the main contention of the insurance company is that the insurance policy is in the name of Mr. Ram Karan Sharma and vehicle is registered in the name of complainant. As such complainant has no insurable interest in the vehicle in question and he is not entitled for any claim amount.  We have perused the documents placed on record by both the parties. As per the policy Ex.C3 the name of the insured is Sh. Ram Karan Sharma and the policy period is 05.10.2018 to 05.10.2019. The vehicle in question met with an accident on 06.09.2019  i.e. within policy period. The registration certificate Ex.C1 is in the name of complainant Neeraj. The intimation of accident Ex.C5 was given by the complainant and the claim form Ex.C7 is also filed by the complainant Neeraj. On the other hand opposite party has placed on record copy of survey report Ex.R2, as per which the surveyor has assessed the loss of Rs.212608/- but the same was repudiated by the opposite party on the ground that the complainant has no insurable interest in the vehicle in question. The contention of the complainant is that he had purchased the vehicle from Sh.Ram Karan and got the vehicle transferred in his name but the insurance policy was not got transferred by the opposite party in his name. It is further contended that complainant being the owner of vehicle is entitled for the claim amount. In this regard we have perused the authority of Hon’ble Delhi State Commission, New Delhi in 1(2022)CPJ 52(Del.) in case titled as IFFCO-TOKIO GENERAL Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sunil &Anr. whereby Hon’ble State Commission has held that : “Where Registration certificate and Insurance is not transferred by original owner in favour of person to which it has been alleged that the ownership has actually been transferred, Original Insured person remains “Owner” for purposes of Motor Vehicles Act and claim is maintainable with respective Insurance Company-When claim was raised with appellant, Registration Certificate and Insurance was in name of Respondent no.1 and he was entitled to raise claim with Appellant-Repudiation not justified”. Moreover in the above mentioned authority the Apex Court judgment titled asSurendra Kumar Bhilawe Vs. The New India Assurance Company Limited reported at II(2020) CJ80(SC)=IV(2020) SLT 252= II(2020) ACC386 =AIR2020SC3149 has also been discussed in para no.8(54): “In view of the definition of ‘owner’ in Section 2(30) of Motor vehicles act, the Appellant remained the owner of the said truck on the date of the accident and the Insurer could not have avoided its liability for the losses suffered by the owner on the ground of transfer of ownership to Mohammad Illiyas Ansari” and also described Section 157 of Motor Vehicle Act i.e.Transfer of certificate of Insurance (1) Where a person in whose favour the certificate of insurance has been issued in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter transfers to another person the ownership of the motor vehicle in respect of which such insurance was taken together with the policy of insurance relating thereto, the certificate of insurance and the policy described in the certificate shall be deemed to have been transferred in favour of the person to whom the motor vehicle is transferred with effect from the date of its transfer”. The alleged law is fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case and the complainant is entitled for the claim being the owner of vehicle. As per survey report the surveyor has assessed the loss of Rs.212608/- but on the other hand, opposite party has itself placed on record an estimate of repair issued by Premium Motocorp. India Ltd. (Tata Motors) for a sum of Rs.1450579/- whereas the IDV of the vehicle is Rs.540950/-. Meaning thereby the vehicle comes under total loss.  Hence the complainant is entitled for the claim as per IDV of vehicle (Rs.540950/-) after deducting the salvage value which we have assessed as Rs.54095/- i.e. for Rs.486855/-(Rs.540950/- less Rs.54095/-).

6.                In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party to pay Rs.486855/-(Rupees four lac eighty six thousand eight hundred and fifty five only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint  i.e. 12.03.2020  till its realisation and also to pay a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five  thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five  thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. However complainant is directed to move an application to the Registration Authority for cancellation of R.C. within 15 days and not to ply the vehicle on road. Complainant is also directed to sale the alleged vehicle in scrap.

7.                Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

12.08.2024.

                                                          ................................................

                                                          Nagender Singh Kadian, President

                                                          ………………………………..

                                                          TriptiPannu, Member.

                                                          ………………………………..

                                                          Vijender Singh, Member.