DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH [Complaint Case No:665 of 2010] Date of Institution :13.10.2010 Date of Decision :03.11.2011 -------------------------------------- Mrs. Paramjeet Kaur wife of Late Sh. Kirpal Singh resident of House No.1074, Sector 18-C, Chandigarh. ---Complainant. V E R S U S The New India Assurance Company Limited, SCO No.804 NAC, (Divisional Office), Manimajra, U.T., Chandigarh through its Divisional Officer/Manager. ---Opposite Party. BEFORE: SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA MEMBER SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU MEMBER Argued By: Sh. S. C. Sharma, Advocate for the complainant. Sh. R. K. Bashamboo, Advocate for the OP. PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT Mrs. Paramjeet Kaur has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein that OP be directed :- i) To pay a sum of Rs.52,538/- as repair charges along with interest @18% per annum. ii) To pay a sum of Rs.35,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment. iii) To pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation. iv) To award any other relief, which the Forum deems fit. 2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that her husband namely Sh. Kirpal Singh got his car bearing registration No.CH-03Z-6442 insured from ICICI Lombard Motor Insurance Company for the period 25.01.2009 to 24.01.2010 vide policy No.3001/56025649/00/000. On 22.11.2009, Sh. Kirpal Singh died. The said policy was not got transferred in the name of legal heirs of Sh. Kirpal Singh and it lapsed on 24.01.2010. It has further been pleaded by the complainant that on 25.01.2010, she got the car insured from the OP and disclosed the fact that Sh. Kirpal Singh has died and being the legal heir of Sh. Kirpal Singh, she is the owner of the said car. However, the OP issued the policy in the name of Sh. Kirpal Singh. On 05.04.2010, the car met with an accident. Information to this effect was given to the police station as well as to the OP. Thereafter, the car was taken to Ultimate Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. for repairs. The OP also appointed a surveyor who inspected the car and submitted his report. According to the complainant, she also submitted the claim. However, she was verbally told that she should pay the bills at the time being. However, she was assured that the loss will be reimbursed. So, on 18.05.2010, she paid the bills amounting to Rs.52,538/- (Annexure A-7) and took the car. She also submitted the bills to OP. She also issued a legal notice on 05.06.2010. To her surprise, OP repudiated the claim vide letter dated 14.06.2010. In these circumstances, the complainant has filed the present complaint seeking the reliefs mentioned above. 3. In the reply filed by OP, the factum of the car bearing registration No.CH-03Z-6442 being insured from it for the period 25.01.2009 to 24.01.2010 has been admitted. OP also admitted that the said car met with an accident and claim was lodged. According to OP, the car was initially insured in the name of Sh. Kirpal Singh on the basis of registration certificate produced by the complainant. However, later on, the said policy was transferred in the name of the complainant on the basis of the request made by her and by that time, the complainant had also got the registration certificate transferred in her favour. It has further been pleaded that on receipt of the claim, a surveyor was appointed who assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.38,986/-. However, the OP has asserted that the claim is not payable as the complainant did not disclose the material fact as regards the ownership of the vehicle in question. Thus, according to OP, there was no insurable interest of the complainant at the time of accident. So, the claim has rightly been repudiated. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP. Therefore, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and perused the record. 5. As regards the facts, there is no material dispute between the parties. The admitted facts are that Sh. Kirpal Singh had died on 22.11.2009. However, the car was insured in his name on 25.01.2010 for the period commencing from 25.01.2010 to 24.01.2011. The car met with an accident on 05.04.2010. The complainant lodged the claim after giving due intimation to the police as well as the OP regarding the accident. 6. The case of OP is that on 05.04.2010, there was no contract regarding the insurance of the said car between the complainant and the OP. So, the complainant has no insurable interest. In these circumstances, the claim has been rightly repudiated. 7. Annexure 2 is the registration certificate. From this document, it is clear that Smt. Paramjeet Kaur is the owner of the car bearing registration no.CH-03Z-6442. Annexure 3 is the policy, which was transferred in the name of Smt. Paramjeet Kaur. The “Collection Date” of the said insurance policy is 21.07.2010. Thus, the said policy was transferred in the name of Smt. Paramjeet Kaur on 21.07.2010. However, against the column “Period of cover”, the date has been mentioned as 25.01.2010 to 24.01.2011. Thus by reading both these entries in the policy, it is apparent that though the policy was transferred in the name of Smt. Paramjeet Kaur on 21.07.2010, it was transferred in her favour with retrospective effect and it was valid from 25.01.2010 to 24.01.2011. Therefore, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the OP to the effect that the complainant had no insurable interest on the date of accident has no force as the policy was transferred in favour of Smt. Paramjeet Kaur covering the period 25.01.2010 to 24.01.2011. So, there was insurable interest of Smt. Paramjeet Kaur on the date of accident also. In these circumstances, repudiation of the claim is contrary to law and amounts to deficiency in service. 8. From the report dated 22.05.2010 (Annexure R-1) submitted by the surveyor, it is apparent that the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.38,986/- for the repair of the car. 9. In view of the above findings, this complaint is allowed with the following directions to OP to:- (i) pay a sum of Rs.38,986/- to the complainant as claim amount as assessed by the surveyor vide his report (Annexure R-1); (ii) pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment; (iii) pay a sum of Rs.7,000/- as costs of litigation; 10. This order be complied with by OP within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which OP shall be liable to pay the aforesaid amount of Rs.48,986/- i.e. (Rs.38,986 + Rs.10,000) to the complainant along with interest @18% per annum from the date of filing the complaint i.e.13.10.2010 till actual payment besides payment of Rs.7,000/- as costs of litigation. 11. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced. 3rd November 2011. Sd/- (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT Sd/- (MADHU MUTNEJA) MEMBER Sd/- (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) MEMBER Ad/-
C.C.No.665 of 2010 Argued By: None. . --- The case was reserved on 02.11.2011. As per separate detailed order of even date, this complaint has been allowed. After compliance file be consigned to the record room. Announced. MEMBER PRESIDENT MEMBER 03.11.2011.
| | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | MR. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER | | 
