Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/259/2014

Sandeep S/o.Kundan Lal - Complainant(s)

Versus

NIC - Opp.Party(s)

Rajan Bhatia

16 Oct 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA   NAGAR AT JAGADHRI.

 

                                                     Complaint No.259 of 2014..

                                                     Date of institution: 05.06.2014.

                                                     Date of decision: 16.10.2017.

1. Sandeep, aged 27 years, S/o Kundan Lal, R/o V.P.O. Kalawar, Tehsil Jagadhri, Distt. Yamuna Nagar.
2. Ombir Singh, aged 29 years, S/o Sh. Randhir Singh, R/o Vill. Kulchandu, P.O. Jagdholi, Distt. Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                                                …Complainants.

                        Versus

1. National Insurance Company, Regd. Office:3, Middleton Street, Kolkatta through its Managing Director.
2. The Manager/Authorized Head, National Insurance Company, Divisional Office, New Fountain Chowk, Yamuna Nagar.

 

….Respondents.

BEFORE     SH. SATPAL, PRESIDENT

                    SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

                    SMT.VEENA RANI SHEOKAND, MEMBER.

 

Present:     Sh. Rajan Bhatia, Advocate, for complainants.   

                Sh. Rajiv Gupta, Advocate for the OPs.

               

                ORDER

         

(SATPAL, PRESIDENT)

1.                The complainants-Sandeep and Ombir Singh have filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, as amended up to date (hereinafter respondents will be referred as OPs). 

2.             Brief facts of the complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that the complainant No.1 was the registered owner of vehicle Hero Honda Splendor bearing registration No.HR02Z-8047 and the same was insured with the Ops vide cover note No.35100731126801373020 valid w.e.f. 24.08.2012 to 23.08.2013.  It is alleged that on 16.07.2013, the complainant No.2 parked the said vehicle in his bathak at Village Kulchandu, P.O. Jagdholi, Distt. Yamuna Nagar at about 7.00 p.m. and in the morning of 17.07.2013, the aforesaid vehicle was stolen by some unknown person.  It is further alleged that an FIR bearing No.139 dt. 24.07.2013 was lodged by the police of P.S.Chapper after a number of visits and repeated requests of the complainant.  Intimation regarding theft of said vehicle was also given to the Ops.  The complainants lodged the claim with the Ops and submitted all the necessary documents with the Ops but the Ops repudiated the claim vide letter dt. 13.03.2014.  The said repudiation of claim is wrong and illegal.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed for acceptance of complaint with the direction to the Ops to pay the insured value of Rs.34,066/- of the vehicle in question alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. to the complainant and further to pay Rs.50,000/- on account of harassment and mental agony alongwith Rs.11,000/- as litigation charges.  Hence, this complaint.

3.            Upon notice, the OPs appeared and filed their written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; that the complainant No.1 had no insurable interest in the motor-cycle in question on the day of alleged theft i.e. on 16/17.07.2013 as the complainant No.1 sold and got transferred the motor-cycle in question in the records of Registering Authority (M.V.) on 05.07.2013 in the name of complainant No.2 but the policy was not transferred in the name of complainant No.2.  The complainant No.2 had no privity of contract with the Ops on the date of alleged theft of the said motor-cycle in question.  The motor-cycle in question alleged to be stolen on 16-17.07.2013, whereas the intimation to the company was given on 24.07.2013 i.e. after a delay of 7 days and FIR was also lodged on 24.07.2013 i.e. after a delay of 7 days, in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops.  On merits, the pleas taken in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.             Ld. Counsel for the complainants tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant No.1 as Annexure-CA and documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C4 and closed evidence on behalf of complainants. 

5.             On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the Ops tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. Parveen Arora, Annexure-RA alongwith documents Annexure-R1 to Annexure-R6 and closed evidence on behalf of Ops.    

6.             We have heard the ld. Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully and minutely.                                      

7.             After hearing the ld. Counsel for both the parties and on perusal of record available on the file, the foremost question which arises before us for consideration is that whether the complainants are entitled for claim or not?

                The version of the complainants is that the complainant No.1 was the registered owner of motor-cycle in question and the same was insured with the Ops vide cover note No.35100731126801373020 valid w.e.f. 24.08.2012 to 23.08.2013.  On the intervening night of 16/17.07.2013, the said motor-cycle in question was stolen.  An FIR bearing No.139 dt. 24.07.2013 was lodged by the police of P.S.Chapper after a number of visits and repeated requests of the complainant.  Intimation regarding theft of said vehicle was also given to the Ops.  The complainants lodged the claim with the Ops and submitted all the necessary documents with the Ops but the Ops repudiated the claim vide letter dt. 13.03.2014.  Ld. Counsel for the complainants has relied upon the case law titled as Om Parkash Vs. Reliance General Insurance Co. & others in SLP (c)  No.742 of 2015 (SC) decided on 04.10.2017, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “A person who lost his vehicle may not straightway to the insurance company to claim compensation.  At first, he will make efforts to trace the vehicle.  It is true that the owner has to intimate the insurer immediately after the theft of vehicle.  However, this condition should not bar settlement of genuine claims particularly when the delay in intimation or submission of documents is due to unavoidable circumstances.  The condition regarding the delay shall not be shelter to repudiate the insurance claim which have been otherwise proved to be genuine.  It needs no emphasis that the Consumer Protection Act aims at providing better protection of the interest of consumers.  It is beneficial legislation that deserves liberal construction.  This laudable object should not be forgotten while considering the claim made under the Act-claimant is entitled for the claim amount.”        

           On the other hand, the plea of the Ops is that the complainant No.1 had no insurable interest in the motor-cycle in question on the day of alleged theft i.e. on 16/17.07.2013 as the complainant No.1 sold and got transferred the motor-cycle in question in the records of Registering Authority on 05.07.2013 in the name of complainant No.2 but the policy was not transferred in the name of complainant No.2.  The complainant No.2 had no privity of contract with the Ops on the date of alleged theft of the said motor-cycle in question.  Ld. Counsel for the Ops also submitted case law cited in 1996(1) PLR page 202 (SC) titled as M/s. Complete Insulations (P) Ltd. Vs. NIA, wherein it has been held that “Comprehensive policy-own damage-Failure of Insurance Company to transfer the vehicle-Since the insurer had not transferred the policy of insurance in relation thereto to the transferee-The insurer was not liable to make good the damage to the vehicle.  Ld. Counsel for the Ops also submitted the case law cited in 2014(3) CLT page 345 titled as National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Jai Bhagwan, decided by Hon’ble National Commission; wherein it is held that the petitioner insurance company was well within its right to repudiate the claim on the ground that there was no privity of contract between the insurance company and the complainant.  Ld. Counsel for the Ops also submitted some copies of orders bearing revision petition No.1528 of 2007 decided by Hon’ble National Commission on 18.10.2011 titled as NIA Vs. Dalip Kumar; revision petition No.4387 of 2009 decided by Hon’ble National Commission titled as NIA Vs. Chandrakant Bhujangres Jogdand and revision petition No.426 of 2007 decided by Hon’ble National Commission on 13.03.2009 titled as UII Vs. Sri V.C. Deen Dayal etc.     

8.             In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the complainant No.1 had no insurable interest in the motor-cycle in question on the day of alleged theft i.e. on 16/17.07.2013 as the complainant No.1 sold and got transferred the motor-cycle in question in the records of Registering Authority on 05.07.2013 in the name of complainant No.2 but the policy was not transferred in the name of complainant No.2.  So far as the complainant No.2 is concerned, the complainant No.2 had no privity of contract with the Ops on the date of alleged theft of the said motor-cycle in question.  The authority submitted by ld. Counsel for the complainant is not disputed but not applicable to the facts of the case, whereas the authorities submitted by the ld. Counsel for the Ops are fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case.  Thus, the Ops are well within their right to decline the claim of complainants in the present case.   

9.             Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we find no merit in the present complaint and accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.      

Announced in open court:

Dated: 16.10.2017.

                                                            (SATPAL)

                                                            PRESIDENT.

 

(VEENA RANI SHEOKAND)         (S.C.SHARMA)

MEMBER                                          MEMBER