BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.

                                                          Consumer Complaint no. 111 of 2013                                                               

                                                             Date of Institution         :    3.5.2013

                                                          Date of Decision   : 7.9.2016  

Ravi Kumar son of Sh. Hans Raj, resident of village Bhangu, Tehsil and District Sirsa.

            ….Complainant.                     

                   Versus

1.  The National Insurance Company Ltd., Sirsa, through its Divisional Manager, Sirsa.

2.  The National Insurance Company Ltd., Hero Honda Vertical 101-106, BMC House, N-1, Canaught Place, New Delhi-110001.

                                                                             ..…Opposite parties.

            Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.

Before:        SHRI S.B.LOHIA…………………PRESIDENT

                    SHRI RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL……….……MEMBER. 

Present:       Sh.Aashish Vashist,  Advocate for the complainant.

       Sh.R.K.Chaudhary, Advocate for opposite parties.

ORDER

                   Case of complainant, in brief, is that he is the owner of Splendor Plus motor cycle bearing registration No. HR-44D/0399. The said motorcycle was purchased by complainant from its registered owner Sh. Chander Parkash son of Sh. Bhagwan Dass, resident of Rania, District Sirsa. vide an affidavit dated 28.6.2012. The above said motorcycle was insured with the opposite parties on 9.8.2011 vide policy No. 35100731106200764727 which was valid up to 8.8.2012. The said motorcycle was stolen by some unknown person on 13.7.2012 upon which complainant got registered an FIR No.518 dated 16.7.2012 under Section 379 IPC in Police Station City Sirsa against unknown person. But the said motorcycle has not been traced out by the police till today and police has submitted final report dated 19.11.2012. The complainant also intimated to the opposite parties immediately. The complainant approached the opposite parties several times and requested to pay the insured amount but they are putting off the matter on one pretext or the other. The complainant also got served a legal notice upon ops on 13.3.2013 but to no effect. Hence, the present complaint for a direction to the opposite parties to pay insurance amount of Rs.32,538/- alongwith Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the complainant for harassment etc. and also litigation expenses.

2.                The opposite parties have filed its reply pleading therein that on the receipt of the information from the complainant on 20.7.2012 regarding theft of the vehicle, Sh. Mithu Ram Dhaniwal, Advocate was deputed for investigation regarding the occurrence, who submitted his report on 15.9.2012 after recording statements of Sh. Ravi Kumar, the alleged owner of the vehicle, Shri Suraj Duggal and Shri Chander Parkash registered owner of the vehicle. The investigator disclosed that the vehicle was stolen on 13.7.2012 for which he got lodged FIR No.518 on 16.7.2012 i.e. after the three days of occurrence and intimated the ops on 20.7.2012, i.e. after seven days of occurrence, which is against the terms and conditions of the policy. As per record and statement of the complainant made to the police, the vehicle has been purchased by the complainant from Shri Chander Parkash and the insurance policy has not been transferred in the name of the complainant. As such the complainant had no insurable interest in the vehicle from the date of sale and there is also no privity of contract between the complainant and the ops. As such the claim of the complainant was repudiated. There is no deficiency on the part of ops.

3.                In order to make out his case, the complainant has placed on record his own affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of policy schedule Ex.C1, copy of affidavit dated 28.6.2012 Ex.C2, copy of legal notice Ex.C3. Whereas, the opposite parties have placed on file affidavit of Sh. Ashok Kamboj, Asstt. Manager as Ex.R1, investigation report Ex.R2, and written application of complainant dated 20.7.2012 as Ex.R3.

4.                We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard learned counsel for both the parties.

5.                There is no dispute before us that complainant purchased the motorcycle in question from its registered owner Chander Parkash vide affidavit dated 28.6.2012 placed on file by the complainant as Ex.C2. There is also no dispute that motor cycle in question was stolen by some unknown person on 13.7.2012. The claim submitted by the complainant to the opposite parties as per version of opposite parties has been repudiated on the ground that complainant lodged the FIR on 16.7.2012 i.e. after three days of occurrence and intimated the ops on 20.7.2012 i.e. after seven days of occurrence and that motorcycle was purchased by complainant from one Chander Parkash but insurance policy has not been transferred in the name of complainant, so complainant had no insurable interest in the vehicle. However, the opposite parties have not placed on file the repudiation letter in this regard and the opposite parties cannot deny the insured amount to the complainant on the ground of late intimation because it has been clarified by the complainant vide application dated 20.7.2012 moved by the complainant to the opposite parties that on 13.7.2012 his motorcycle was stolen from Chaudhary Devi Lal University and intimation in this regard was given by him to the police on the same day. It has also been clarified by the complainant that he could not get the motor cycle registered in his name due to his exams of M.A. Class and he could not intimate the ops in time as he received the copy of FIR late. As the intimation of theft was given to the police on the same day and police investigated the matter but vehicle could not be traced out, so it cannot be said that any prejudice has been caused to the opposite parties.

6.                Secondly, Section 50 (1) (b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 regarding transfer of ownership casts duty upon the transferee i.e. complainant that he shall, within thirty days of the transfer, report the transfer to the registering authority within whose jurisdiction he has the residence or place of business where the vehicle is normally kept. In this case the vehicle was purchased by the complainant from one Chander Parkash on 28.6.2012 through duly attested affidavit Ex.C2 and he was to report the transfer to the registering authority, Sirsa within thirty days i.e. up to 27.7.2012 but the motorcycle was stolen on 13.7.2012, and therefore, it cannot be said that complainant failed to get registered the vehicle in his name within prescribed period. Had the vehicle been transferred in the name of complainant within that period of one month, the insurance policy would have been deemed as transferred in favour of the complainant, but the vehicle was stolen during that period of one month. In a similar matter, the Hon’ble Uttarakhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dehradun in case titled as New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Anr. vs. Brijveer Singh, 2011 (2) CPJ 466  cited by learned counsel for complainant has held that “repudiation of claim, was invalid. Order of District Forum is upheld. In instant case, owner delivered all documents including insurance policy to buyer complainant- Complainant-buyer can avail services being beneficiary, he can submit claim- Held, complainant is a consumer as defined under Section 2(1) (d) (ii) of Act, 1986.” It has been also held in that case that “Further, it was not the person but the motor vehicle which was insured by the Insurance Company and the policy had not ceased and was in existence. Therefore, in the case of an incident of theft, which was found genuine (and not fabricated) by the police and also by the investigator deputed by the Insurance Company, the Insurance Company shall have to pay the compensation for the loss.” 

7.                The abovesaid authority is fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In the present case also, the Investigator deputed by the insurance company has found the incident of theft as genuine and the complainant being the beneficiary is the consumer of the opposite parties. The authorities relied upon by learned counsel for opposite parties in case titled as New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Dalip Kumar, 2011 (4) CPJ 579 (NC) is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case as in that case complainant renewed insurance of vehicle in the name of previous owner but failed to inform insurance company about transfer of registration certificate in his name. The other authorities cited by learned counsel for opposite parties in cases titled as United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Umesh Aangale, 2009(1) CLT 660 (MP) and M/s. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ram Gopal Sharma & others, 2013 (4) CLT 402 are also not applicable in the present case.

8.                Resultantly, this complaint is hereby allowed, with a direction to insurance company i.e. to the opposite parties, to pay insured amount of Rs.32,538/- to the complainant, with upto date interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of complaint i.e.3.5.2013, till payment. The opposite parties are also directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- for his harassment, humiliation, mental agony etc. and litigation expenses of Rs.2000/- to the complainant. Compliance of this order be made within a period of 60 days from today. File be consigned to record room after due compliance

Announced in open Forum.                                  President,

Dated:7.9.2016                        Member.     District Consumer Disputes

                                                                   Redressal Forum, Sirsa.