Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Room No. 208 2nd Floor, District Administrative Complex, Tarn Taran
Consumer Complaint No : 10 of 2017
Date of Institution : 02.03.2017
Date of Decision : 20.01.2020
Lakhbir Singh son of Baldev Singh, resident of village Jamalpur, Tehsil Patti, District Tarn Taran.
...Complainant
Versus
- Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Head Office at Oriental House -25/27 Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi, through General Manager,
- Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. R.O. S.C.O 109-110-111, Surindra Building, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh through General Manger,
- Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Office, Amritsar road Tarn Taran through Branch Manager,
- Ahuja Auto Mobiles Opp. Satkar Palace Amritsar Road Tarn Taran through Branch Manager.
…Opposite Parties.
Complaint Under Section 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Quorum: Sh. Charanjit Singh, President
Ms. Jaswinder Kaur, Member
For Complainant Sh. Bikram Arora Advocate
For Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 Sh. D.K. Kondura Advocate
For Opposite Party No. 4 Withdrawn.
ORDERS:
Charanjit Singh, President;
1 The complainant Lakhbir Singh has filed the present complaint under Section 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act (herein after called as 'the Act') against Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Head Office at Oriental House A-25/27 Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi, through General Manager and others (Opposite Parties) on the allegations of deficiency in service and negligence in service on the part of opposite parties with prayer to direct the opposite parties to reimburse the whole claim amount to the tune of Rs. 3,44,328/- of the stolen vehicle as stated above alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of stolen of the vehicle i.e. 23.12.2013 and the complainant has also prayed Rs. 50,000/- as compensation and Rs. 50,000/- as litigation expenses.
2 The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant is owner of a car make Hyundai Eon D-Lite Model 2012 having registration No. PB46P-2412, Engine No. 009725, chassis No. 148415. The complainant was using the said car for his personal use. On 31.12.2012, the complainant got purchased the above said vehicle and insured the same vehicle from the opposite party No.4 Ahuja Auto Mobiles Opposite Satkar Palace, Amritsar Road, Tarn Taran, after paying the premium to the opposite party No.4 being agent of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd, which bears seal and stamp of Opposite Party No.4 as such, the complainant is beneficiary of the services of opposite parties being their consumer. It was the first insurance of his above said newly purchased vehicle and its insured declared value was Rs.3,44,328/-. The complainant went alongwith his family to meet his cousin brother, Attar Singh son of Tarlochan Singh, resident of B-317 Second floor, Sector 20 Noida. In the night of 23.12.2013, the above said vehicle was stolen by some unidentified persons, when it was parked in front of market G-block Sector 20. In this respect Attar Singh, who was local resident of Noida got registered an F.I.R. bearing No.1398/13 dated 24.12.2013, under section 379 I.P.C at Police Station Noida Sector 20. The FIR was registered by Attar Singh being complainant for a reason that he is local resident of Noida and to avoid inconvenience to his brother –Lakhbir Singh, resident of Jamalpur, Tehsil & District Tarn Taran, who was the actual owner of the said car. On 7.2.2014, a final report bearing No.125/14 regarding the non-traceable of the above stolen vehicle was submitted by the police of Noida Sector 20 which was accepted by the Hon’ble Court at Noida vide its order dated 7.2.2014. The claim regarding the theft of vehicle was also got registered by the complainant with the opposite parties within time and all other documents as required by the opposite parties have been submitted by the complainant with the opposite parties. Attar Singh being resident of Noida was inquiring about the claim launched for the above said stolen vehicle from the branch office of opposite party at Noida as well as from surveyor, The complainant Lakhbir Singh was resident of Jamalpur District Tarn Taran, which is very far from Noida and it was not possible by Lakhbir Singh to visit Branch office and surveyor and inquired the matter time and again. Therefore, he asked his brother Attar Singh to get the formalities completed as and when required by the opposite parties. In this respect Attar Singh visited the branch office and surveyor a number of times. The surveyor by misrepresenting and misleading also got singed a letter written by Attar Singh and having signature of Lakhbir Singh which were intimated by Attar Singh at the instance of Surveyor that it is a formality and after that they will get the claim of the stolen Vehicle. In the said letter, the surveyor by misrepresenting also got recorded that the said vehicle has been sold by Lakhbir Singh to Attar Singh and he is the owner of the same, so that the insured amount be issued to Attar Singh & Lakhbir Singh is having no objection. Said letter was written by Attar Singh at the instance of surveyor and the surveyor also asked Attar Singh to intimate the signature of Lakhbir Singh, so that all formalities will be completed and the sum insured will be given to Attar Singh without any inconvenience to Lakhbir Singh. The complainant approached the opposite parties with the request that the claim amount to be reimbursed to the complainant, as per the loss actually incurred by the complainant but the opposite party insurance company did not put ears to the requests of complainant. Therefore, a complaint was filed by Lakhbir Singh before this Forum, where the complaint was dismissed. The complainant sought appeal to the said order dated 23.03.2015 of District Consumer Forum, Tarn Taran before the Hon’ble State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission Punjab at Chandigarh, where the Hon’ble State Commission set aside the order of Learned District Forum with direction to decide the complaint on merits and the parties are directed to appear before the District Forum on 05.02.2016. The Learned District Forum after hearing the case on merits ordered that if the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 Insurance Company fails to decide the claim case of the complainant shall be deemed to have been allowed in total. Thereafter, the opposite parties very cleverly just before, the completion of two months as per order of the learned District Forum, sent the letter dated 30.6.2016 to complainant where by which it was mentioned that claim of the complainant has been repudiated as “No Claim” in back date. The opposite parties are guilty of fault, imperfection, abort coming and inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance of service. Feeling dissatisfied by the act and conduct of the opposite parties, the complainant perforce has filed this complaint against the opposite parties.
3 After formal admission of the complaint, notice was issued to Opposite Parties and opposite parties No. 1 to 3 appeared through counsel and filed written version contesting the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable because the claimant has concealed material facts from this Forum. Lakhbir Singh son of Baldev Singh resident of village Jamalpur Tehsil and District Tarn Taran has already sold Hyundai EON D-Lite Model 2012 bearing registration No.PB- 46P-2412 Engine No.009725 Chassis No.148415 to Attar Singh son of Tarlochan Singh, resident of H.No.26, St No.8 Bachittar Nagar Ludhiana Pin Code 141006, after taking Rs.3 Lacs 20 thousand and this fact has been admitted by Attar Singh son of Tarlochan Singh and this vehicle was stolen from residence of Noida at B-317, Second Floor Sector 20, but there is no transfer of RC of insurance in the name of Attar Singh within a stipulated time and hence, there was no insurable interest of insured in the above claim. The claimant has got no cause of action as well as no locus standi to file the present complaint because he was no more owner of the vehicle No.PB-46P-2412 he has already sold it to Attar Singh son of Tarlochan Singh. In Noida the FIR was registered by Attar Singh son of Tarlochan Singh on 24.12.2013 regarding stolen of vehicle No.PB-46P-2412, from this it is clear that the vehicle was in possession of Attar Singh son of Tarlochan Singh and not in possession of Lakhbir Singh son of Baldev Singh. The claim petition has been filed by Lakhbir Singh because Insurance of said vehicle was in the name of Lakhbir Singh son of Baldev Singh, whereas, he has no right to file this complaint. Lakhbir Singh has also in his letter mentioned this fact that he has sold the vehicle to Attar Singh son of Tarlochan Singh resident of B-317, Second Floor, Sector 20 Noida. This fact was also identified by two persons of Noida namely Mahavir Jain and Neeraj Jain, their identity cards and their statement have been attached alongwith the written version. Attar Singh has also submitted the following documents No.(1) RC, (2) RTO Letter, (3) Service record, (4) Original FIR, (5) Final Report through court, (6) Witness IP Proof, (7) Insurance Policy, (8) Invoice and he also admitted of this fact that he has received only one key from the first parties. The claimant has no insurable interest in the vehicle because he has already sold the same to Hyundai EON D-Lite Model 2012 bearing registration NO.PB46P-2412 Engine NO-009725 Chassis NO.148415 to Attar Singh son of Tarlochan Singh, resident of H.N0.26, ST NO.8, Bachittar Nagar Ludhiana Pin Code 141006, after taking Rs.03 Lacs 20 Thousand. When any vehicle is sold a fresh proposal form duly completed is to be obtained from the transferee in respect of both liability only and package policies. The transferee shall apply within 14 days from the date of transferee in writing under the recorded delivery to the insurer who insured the vehicle, with the details of registration of the vehicle, the date of transfer of the vehicle, the previous owner of vehicle and the number and date of insurance policy so that the insurer may make the necessary changes in his record and issue fresh certificate of insurer. The old certificate of insurance for vehicle is required to be surrendered and fresh certificate is to be issued in the name of transferee. On merits, the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 have reiterated the stand in the reply on merits as taken in the preliminary objections and all the other allegations in the complaint have been denied by the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 and prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
4 The complainant has withdrawn the present complaint against the opposite party No. 4 vide order dated 12.10.2017 of this Forum.
5 To prove the case of complainant, Ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant Lakhbir Singh Ex. C-1, affidavit of Attar Singh Ex. C-2 alongwith documents Ex. C-3 to Ex. C-16 and closed the evidence. On the other hands, Ld. counsel for the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. R.K. Sharma DM OIC Ex. OPs 1 to 3/1 alognwith documents Ex. OPs 1 to 3/2 to Ex. OPs 1 to 3/10 and closed the evidence.
6 We have heard the Ld. Counsels for the complainant and opposite parties No. 1 to 3 and have gone through the evidence and documents placed on the file by the parties.
7 Ld. counsel for the complainant contended that the complainant is owner of a car make Hyundai Eon D-Lite Model 2012 having registration No. PB46P-2412, Engine No. 009725, chassis No. 148415 and the complainant has placed on record RC of the vehicle Ex. C-6.. On 31.12.2012, the complainant got purchased the above said vehicle and insured the same vehicle from the opposite party No.4, after paying the premium to the opposite party No.4 being agent of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd, which bears seal and stamp of Opposite Party No.4 as such, the complainant is beneficiary of the services of opposite parties being their Consumer. It was the first insurance of his above said newly purchased vehicle and its insured declared value was Rs.3,44,328/- and the insurance policy is Ex. C-3. The complainant went alongwith his family to meet his cousin brother, Attar Singh son of Tarlochan Singh, resident of B-317 Second floor, Sector 20 Noida. In the night of 23.12.2013, the above said vehicle was stolen by some unidentified persons, when it was parked in front of market G-block Sector 20. In this respect Attar Singh, who was local resident of Noida got registered an F.I.R. bearing No.1398/13 dated 24.12.2013, under section 379 I.P.C at Police Station Noida Sector 20 and the copy of FIR is Ex. C-8. FIR was registered by Attar Singh being complainant for a reason that he is local resident of Noida and to avoid inconvenience to his brother –Lakhbir Singh, resident of Jamalpur, Tehsil & District Tarn Taran, who was the actual owner of the said car. On 7.2.2014, a final report bearing No.125/14 regarding the non-traceable of the above stolen vehicle was submitted by the police of Noida Sector 20 which was accepted by the Hon’ble Court at Noida vide its order dated 7.2.2014 and the Non Traceable report is Ex. C-7. The claim regarding the theft of vehicle was also got registered by the complainant with the opposite parties within time and all other documents as required by the opposite parties have been submitted by the complainant with the opposite parties. He further contended that Attar Singh being resident of Noida was inquiring about the claim launched for the above said stolen vehicle from the branch office of opposite parties at Noida as well as from surveyor, The complainant Lakhbir Singh was resident of Jamalpur District Tarn Taran, which is very far from Noida and it was not possible by Lakhbir Singh to visit Branch office and surveyor and inquired the matter time and again. Therefore, he asked his brother Attar Singh to get the formalities completed as and when required by the opposite parties. In this respect, Attar Singh visited the branch office and surveyor a number of times. The surveyor by misrepresenting and misleading also got singed a letter written by Attar Singh and having signature of Lakhbir Singh which were intimated by Attar Singh at the instance of Surveyor that it is a formality and after that they will get the claim of the stolen Vehicle. In the said letter, the surveyor by misrepresenting also got recorded that the said vehicle has been sold by Lakhbir Singh to Attar Singh and he is the owner of the same, so that the insured amount be issued to Attar Singh & Lakhbir Singh is having no objection. Said letter was written by Attar Singh at the instance of surveyor and the surveyor also asked Attar Singh to intimate the signature of Lakhbir Singh, so that all formalities will be completed and the sum insured will be given to Attar Singh without any inconvenience to Lakhbir Singh. The complainant approached the opposite parties with the request that the claim amount to be reimbursed to the complainant, as per the loss actually incurred by the complainant but the opposite parties insurance company did not put ears to the requests of complainant. Therefore, a complaint was filed by Lakhbir Singh before this Forum, where the complaint was dismissed. The complainant sought appeal to the said order dated 23.03.2015 of District Consumer Forum, Tarn Taran before the Hon’ble State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission Punjab at Chandigarh, where the Hon’ble State Commission set aside the order of Learned District Forum with direction to decide the complaint on merits and the parties are directed to appear before the District Forum on 05.02.2016. The Learned District Forum after hearing the case on merits ordered that if the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 Insurance Company fails to decide the claim case of the complainant shall be deemed to have been allowed in total. Thereafter, the opposite parties very cleverly just before, the completion of two months as per order of the learned District Forum, sent the letter dated 30.6.2016 to complainant where by which it was mentioned that claim of the complainant has been repudiated as “No Claim” in back date. The opposite parties are guilty of fault, imperfection, abort coming and inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance of service. Ld. counsel for the complainant prayed that the present complaint may be allowed.
8 Ld. counsel for the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 contended that the present complaint is not maintainable because the claimant has concealed material facts from this Forum. Lakhbir Singh son of Baldev Singh resident of village Jamalpur Tehsil and District Tarn Taran has already sold Hyundai EON D-Lite Model 2012 bearing registration No.PB- 46P-2412 Engine No.009725 Chassis No.148415 to Attar Singh son of Tarlochan Singh, resident of H.No.26, St No.8 Bachittar Nagar Ludhiana Pin Code 141006, after taking Rs.3 Lacs 20 thousand and this fact has been admitted by Attar Singh son of Tarlochan Singh and this vehicle was stolen from residence of Noida at B-317, Second Floor Sector 20, but there is no transfer of RC of insurance in the name of Attar Singh within a stipulated time and hence, there was no insurable interest of insured in the above claim. He further contended that the claimant has got no cause of action as well as no locus standi to file the present complaint because he was no more owner of the vehicle No.PB-46P-2412 as he has already sold it to Attar Singh son of Tarlochan Singh. He further contended that in Noida the FIR was registered by Attar Singh son of Tarlochan Singh on 24.12.2013 regarding stolen of vehicle No.PB-46P-2412, from this it is clear that the vehicle was in possession of Attar Singh son of Tarlochan Singh and not in possession of Lakhbir Singh son of Baldev Singh. The claim petition has been filed by Lakhbir Singh because Insurance of said vehicle was in the name of Lakhbir Singh son of Baldev Singh, whereas, he has no right to file this complaint. He further contended that Lakhbir Singh has also in his letter mentioned this fact that he has sold the vehicle to Attar Singh son of Tarlochan Singh resident of B-317, Second Floor, Sector 20 Noida. This fact was also identified by two persons of Noida namely Mahavir Jain and Neeraj Jain, their identity cards and their statement have been attached alongwith the written version which are Ex. OPs 1 to3/4 to Ex. OPs 1 to 3/7 . Attar Singh has also submitted the following documents No.(1) RC, (2) RTO Letter, (3) Service record, (4) Original FIR, (5) Final Report through court, (6) Witness IP Proof, (7) Insurance Policy, (8) Invoice and he also admitted of this fact that he has received only one key from the first parties. He further contended that the claimant has no insurable interest in the vehicle because he has already sold the same to Hyundai EON D-Lite Model 2012 bearing registration NO.PB46P-2412 Engine NO-009725 Chassis NO.148415 to Attar Singh son of Tarlochan Singh, resident of H.N0.26, ST NO.8, Bachittar Nagar Ludhiana Pin Code 141006, after taking Rs.03 Lacs 20 Thousand. He further contended that when any vehicle is sold a fresh proposal form duly completed is to be obtained from the transferee in respect of both liability only and package policies. The transferee shall apply within 14 days from the date of transferee is writing under the recorded delivery to the insurer who insured the vehicle, with the details of registration of the vehicle, the date of transfer of the vehicle, the previous owner of vehicle and the number and date of insurance policy so that the insurer may make the necessary changes in his record and issue fresh certificate of insurer. The old certificate of insurance for vehicle is required to be surrendered and fresh certificate is to be issued in the name of transferee and Ld. counsel for the opposite parties prayed that the present complaint may be dismissed. During the course of arguments, Ld. counsel for the opposite party has placed on record citation IV(2015) CPJ 682(NC).
9 In the present case, insurance is not disputed and it is also not disputed that the vehicle in question was stolen at Delhi. The opposite parties have repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 30.6.2016 and relevant Paras are as follows:-
“….. In this connection we wish to inform you that the competent authority has repudiate the claim on the ground that you had sold the vehicle to Sh. Attar Singh as mentioned by you in your statement given to the investigator. Therefore, the ownership of vehicle has passed on to Sh. Attar Singh who did not get the insurance policy transferred in his name.
In view of the investigation report, the competent authority has repudiated your claim on the ground of Non-existence of insurance interest in the alleged stolen Vehicle. As such, nothing is payable under this claim which you please note”
The vehicle was duly insured with opposite parties for the period from 31.12.2012 to 30.12.2013 vide Ex. C-3 and the car was stolen on 23.12.2013 during the currency of this policy which is quite evident from FIR Ex. C-8 and the complainant has also placed on record non-traceable certificate Ex. C-7. The whole of the case of the opposite parties is that the complainant has sold his car to one Attar Singh and Attar Singh has not got transferred the vehicle is in his name. To support their case, the opposite parties have placed on record certificate of Mahavir Jain Ex. OP 1 to 3/4 and another certificate of Neeraj Jain Ex. OPs 1 to 3/6. But the opposite parties have not placed on record affidavit of Mahavir Jain and Neeraj Jain to prove the certificates Ex. OPs 1 to 3/4 and Ex. OPs 1 to 3/6 and in the absence of affidavits of the said persons there is no authenticity of the said documents. The opposite parties have also not produced on record any registration certificate of the vehicle in question in the name of said Attar Singh and in the absence of registration certificate of the vehicle in question in the name of Attar Singh, it cannot be said that the vehicle has been sold to said Attar Singh. Moreover the opposite parties cannot repudiate the claim of the complainant on the ground of non-transfer of RC. It has been held by the Hon'ble State Commission of Uttarkhand State in case New India Assurance Company Ltd & Anr.Vs. Brijveer Singh II(2011) CPJ 466 that in the cases of theft claim of the complainant cannot be repudiated only on the ground that vehicle was not transferred. The contention of the opposite parties that there was no privity of contract between the insurer and the complainant, was not accepted and it was held that claim should have been settled in favour of owner or complainant being beneficiary. Same view has been taken by our own Hon'ble State Commission in case National Insurance Company and another Vs. Neha Garg 2005(2) CPC 267. Here in this case when the opposite parties have already issued insurance policy in the name of the complainant, so the opposite parties cannot deny the claim of the complainant. As such the opposite parties are liable to pay the claim of the stolen vehicle to the complainant because the vehicle was stolen during the force of policy in question. The citation cited by the opposite parties is based on the different facts and circumstances and is not applicable to applicable to the present case.
10 The opposite parties No. 1 to 3 have failed to place on record any document which shows that the complainant has sold the vehicle to Attar Singh. Moreover, opposite parties No. 1 to 3 have placed on record two hand written documents i.e. Ex. OPs 1 to 3/8 and Ex. OPs 1 to 3/9 addressed to investigator are written by the same person in same hand writing, however, signed by different persons which supports the contention of the complainant that the opposite parties No.1 to 3 by misrepresentation got the same recorded and it has no relevancy in the present complaint. It is well established that complainant i.e. Lakhbir Singh has an insurable interest and the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 are liable to indemnify the same.
11 The complainant has placed on record insurance policy Ex. C-3 in which declared value of the vehicle is mentioned as Rs. 3,44,328/-. As the theft took place during the operation of the insurance policy, therefore, the complainant is entitled to claim the Insured Declared Value from the Opposite Parties which is mentioned in the policy itself. The complainant is also entitled to compensation on account of harassment and mental agony and in the opinion of the Forum, the balance of justice would struck if the complainant is awarded Rs.10,000/- on account of compensation for harassment and mental agony.
12. In light of the above discussion, the complaint succeeds as discussed above and is allowed with costs in favour of complainant and against Opposite Parties No. 1 to 3. The complainant is held entitled to recover Rs.3,44,328/- (Rupees Three Lacs forty four thousand three hundred and twenty eight only) as insurance claim for the car in question, subject to fulfilling the necessary requirement for the transfer of the car in question in the name of Opposite Parties (Insurance Company) and filing the subrogation letter and other necessary compliance. The complainant is also entitled to Rs. 10,000/- as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony. The complainant is also awarded Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation from the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3. Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 are directed to pay the awarded amount to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order failing with the complainant shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum to the awarded amount from the date of theft of vehicle till its realisation. Copy of order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in Open Forum Dated: 20.01.2020 |
