DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA. Complaint No. CC/10/46 of 18.1.2010 Decided on: 21.10.2010 Ramesh Kumar son of Sh.Laxmi Chand R/o Village and Post Office Tohana District Fatehabad(Haryana). -----------Complainant Versus The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Patiala through its Branch Manager at Sai Market Lower Mall, Patiala. ----------Opposite party. Complaint under Sections 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. QUORUM Sh.Inderjit Singh, President Sh.Amarjit Singh Dhindsa,Member Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member Present: For the complainant: Sh.Mohan Lal, Advocate For opposite party: Sh.D.P.S.Anand, Advocate ORDER SH.INDERJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT Complainant Ramesh Kumar has brought this consumer complaint under Sections 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 as amended up to date ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the opposite party fully detailed and described in the head note of the complaint. 2. As per averments made in the complaint the case of the complainant is like this:- That the complainant is owner of vehicle bearing No.HR-51/2277,chassis No.1104491, engine No.1476909,Model 1997. That the complainant had given his car to Babu Ram s/o Harbans Lal R/o village Sanch Tehsil Pundri District Kaithal as Babu Ram is the friend of the complainant. Babu Ram reported the matter to the police as he was having the vehicle on 5.4.2005 in his possession. Being complainant Babu Ram made application to the police as well as in the office of the opposite party regarding the theft of the vehicle. That the above said vehicle was stolen from outside of the court complex Karnal.On 5.4.2005 a report in this regard was made to the police by Babu Ram. The police lodged an FIR against unknown person vide FIR No.117 dated 7.4.2005 u/s 379 IPC, P.S.Civil Lines, Karnal. In the said FIR the complainant is Satbir. However, in this FIR the report made by Babu Ram is also mentioned as two cars were stolen on that day from court complex Karnal. That the above said vehicle was insured by the opposite party vide policy No.233500/2005/676 dated 9.5.2004. That the said vehicle has not been traced out till today. That the opposite party is liable to pay damages to the complainant as per policy being insurer of the vehicle in question. That the complainant has made repeated requests to the opposite party and registered legal notice was also sent to the office of the opposite party vide postal receipt No.EE-792905812 on dated 13.1.2006. That due to illegal act of the opposite party the complainant suffered a great loss i.e. mental, physical and monetary harassment. Hence this complaint. 3. Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite party, who appeared and filed the written reply contesting the claim of the complainant. It is denied that the complainant is the owner of the car bearing No.HR-51B-2277 as he had sold the car to Sh.Babu Ram son of Harbans Lal on 20.12.2004 & thus was not having any insurable interest. The actual owner of the car was Sh.Babu Ram after 20.12.2004. It is denied that the complainant had given the car to Babu Ram as Babu Ram is the friend of the complainant. It is denied that Babu Ram reported the matter to the police and opposite party as he was having the vehicle on 5.4.2005 inhis possession .The complainant has twisted the correct facts as in fact the car had since been sold to Sh.Babu Ram son of Harbans Lal on 20.12.2004 and delivered the possession to him after having a sum of Rs.72000/- from him.That the claim was reported by Sh.Babu Ram by filing claim form and intimation letter. It is denied that the car was stolen from outside of the court complex Karnal. It is denied that the police lodged an FIR against unknown person vide FIR No.117 dated 7.4.2005 u/s 379 IPC, Police Station Civil Lines, Karnal. That Sh.Babu Ram had informed the police being owner of the car. That the car bearing No.HR-51B-2277 was insured with the opposite party in the name of Sh.Ramesh Kumar son of Laxami Chand resident of village & Post Office Tohana Distt.Fatehabad for a sum of Rs.70365/- for the period 9.5.2004 to 8.5.2005 but the insurance company has got no liability as he has sold the car to Sh.Babu Ram on 20.12.2004 and thus has got no insurable interest. It is however, stated that on receipt of intimation of loss the Insurance Company had deputed M/s Royal Associates Kurukhetra to investigate the case who in his report dated 2.8.2005 has found that Sh.Ramesh Kumar had sold the car to Sh.Babu Ram and executed an affidavit and delivery by making statement to investigator. The claim form and FIR have also been signed by said Babu Ram son of Harbans Lal and has further found that Sh.Ramesh Kumar has got no insurable interest in the car and thus the claim was repudiated and insured was informed under registered cover. The claim has been repudiated as per terms and conditions of the policy. It is denied that the opposite party is liable to pay damages to the complainant. It is denied that the complainant has made repeated requests to the opposite party and registered legal notice was also sent to the office of the opposite party. It is denied that the opposite party has committed deficiency in services and complainant has suffered a lot to harassment and mental agony. All other averments made in the complaint have also been denied. The pleas that this Forum has no jurisdiction to try and decide the complaint and that only Civil Court is competent to try the present dispute have also been taken and has prayed that complaint be dismissed. 4. The parties in order to prove their case have tendered their respective evidence on the record. 5. The parties have filed the written arguments. We have gone through the same and have also heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. The learned counsel for the opposite party has contended that the complainant has got no insurable interest as he has already sold the car on 20.12.2004 and has delivered the possession to Sh.Babu Ram S/o Harbans Lal R/o Tohana. He has further contended that the complainant has not lodged any claim with the company. He has further contended that the claim was reported by Sh.Babu Ram which was got investigated through Royal Associates Kurukeshtra who found that Ramesh Kumar complainant had sold the car to Sh.Babu Ram and executed an affidavit and delivery letter and said Babu Ram confirmed the same by making a statement to the investigator. He has further contended that the claim form and FIR have also been signed by Babu Ram. Thus, on the basis of investigation report the claim was repudiated and he was informed under registered cover. 7. Whereas the learned counsel for the complainant has contended that complainant is the owner of vehicle bearing registration No.HR51-2277. He has further contended that the complainant had given his car to Babu Ram as he is the friend of the complainant. Babu Ram had reported the matter to the police as he has having the vehicle on 5.4.2005 in his possession being complainant Babu Ram made application to the police as well as in the office of the opposite party regarding the theft of the vehicle. He has further contended that the said vehicle was stolen from outside the court complex,Karnal and on 5.4.2005 a report in this regard was made to the police by Babu Ram. The police got registered FIR against un known person vide No.117 dated 7.4.2005 u/s 379 IPC in police station Civil Lines,Karnal.He has further contended that the disputed vehicle was insured by the opposite party vide policy,Ex.C4 dated 9.5.2004.The said vehicle has not been traced out till today.The opposite party is liable to pay damages to the complainant as per policy being insurer of the vehicle in question 8. We have considered the rival contention of the learned counsel for the parties. 9. The contention of the opposite party is that the complainant had sold the disputed car to Babu Ram s/o Harbans Lal on 20.12.2004 and that the FIR and claim was also lodged by Babu Ram s/o Harbans Lal being the owner of the disputed car. The present complaint has been filed by Ramesh Kumar wherein he has alleged that Babu Ram was in possession of the car being his friend.He has also pleaded that the car was never sold to Babu Ram. It is pleaded that the certificate of registration of the disputed car is in his name and that the policy,Ex.C4 is also in his name which is valid for the period 9.5.2004 to 8.5.2005 and the alleged theft had taken placed on5.4.2005. 10. The perusal of the policy, Ex.C4 would show that it is in the name of Ramesh Kumar, complainant. The certificate of registration, Ex.R6 also shows that Ramesh Kumar complainant is the registered owner of the disputed car. The contention of the opposite party is that the disputed car was sold to Babu Ram by the complainant through affidavit, Ex.R7.However, there is no entry made regarding the transfer of the disputed vehicle in favour of Babu Ram in the registration certificate, Ex.R6.Meaning thereby that the vehicle was never transferred in favour of Babu Ram and complainant is the legal registered owner of the vehicle in dispute. Since the policy, Ex.C4 of the disputed vehicle and in the registration certificate the vehicle in dispute stands in the name of the complainant, so the complainant has insurable interest in the vehicle in dispute. 11. The perusal of the record would however, show that the complainant has never filed any claim with the opposite party. Rather the claim was filed by Babu Ram s/o Harbans Lal vide claim form,Ex.R9.So it is proved on record that the complainant has never lodged any claim with the opposite party. Therefore, it is hold that the present complaint is premature. 12. In the result we hold that the complaint is not maintainable being premature. The complaint merits dismissal and is dismissed accordingly. The parties under the peculiar circumstances are however, left to bear their own costs. The copy of this order is sent to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record. Pronounced. Dated:21.10.2010. President Member Member
| | Mr. Amarjit Singh Dhindsa, Member | HONABLE MR. Inderjit Singh, PRESIDENT | Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member | | 
