Haryana

Sonipat

CC/67/2015

KIRAN PAL S/O SURESH KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

MANNU MALIK

14 Aug 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

             

 

                             Complaint No.67 of 2015

                             Instituted on:04.03.2015                                           Date of order:17.09.2015

 

Kiran Pal son of late Sh. Suresh Pal, resident of H.No.2514, Sector 12, Sonepat.

…Complainant.

Versus

 

Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Divisional office  204-R Model Town, Atlas road, Sonepat through its Branch Manager.

                                                …Respondent.

 

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF        

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by:    Sh. Mannu Malik Adv. for complainant.

              Sh. Surender Malik Adv. for respondent. 

 

BEFORE    NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT.

          PRABHA WATI, MEMBER.

          D.V. RATHI, MEMBER.

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondent alleging himself to be the registered owner of vehicle no.HR-09G-0040 and the same was insured with the respondent for the period w.e.f. 30.11.2013 to 29.11.2014 vide policy no.261600/31/2014/4540.  Since the complainant was/is residing in Gurgaon due to his business purposes, so the complainant asked his friend Upnesh Ranjan to maintain, use and lookafter the vehicle so that the vehicle may not remain idle and thus, the vehicle in question was lookafter by the said Upnesh Ranjan who parked the vehicle at his residence.  But unfortunately during the intervening night of 2/3.3.2014 the said vehicle was stolen by some unknown person.  He immediately informed the police at 100 number regarding the theft of the vehicle.  Later-on FIR no.63 dated 3.3.2014 u/s 379 IPC was lodged with the concerned police station.  The complainant on 5.3.2014  also informed the respondent regarding the theft of the vehicle and the intimation was duly received by the respondent under rubber stamp of the company.  The complainant also lodged the claim by completing all the necessary formalities and by submitting all the required documents including untraced report.  The investigator Royal Associates vide letter dated 13.3.2014 also demanded many documents which were submitted and on receipt of the same, the respondent assured that the claim will be settled at the earliest.  The investigator got some blank papers signed from Upnesh Ranjan assuring that he will record favourable statement which in future will help the registered owner of the vehicle for obtaining claim from the respondent.   But after receiving the repudiation letter dated 23.12.2014, the complainant came to know that the investigator at his own has mentioned regarding sale and purchase of the vehicle in question in between the registered owner and Upnesh Ranjan.  The investigator favouring the interest of the respondent has made a false report regarding sale and purchase of the vehicle.   The respondent has wrongly and illegally repudiated the claim only to harass and humiliate the complainant. The complainant is entitled to get the claim amount to the tune of Rs.2,52,000/- alongwith interest and compensation.  The complainant has alleged the repudiation of his claim to be wrong and illegal. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        In reply, the respondent has submitted that the complainant was not having any insurable interest with the vehicle at the time of obtaining the policy from the respondent and the vehicle in question was already sold by the complainant.  FIR no.63 dated 3.3.2014 was lodged by Upnesh Ranjan Gaur and from the bare perusal of the FIR, he himself stated that he parked his Bolero outside of his house and at about 3.15 am when he checked the vehicle, he found the vehicle missing.  The claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated vide letter dated 23.12.2014 as the complainant has already sold the vehicle to Upnesh Ranjan Gaur and the policy in question has been obtained in the name of the present complainant by Upnesh Ranjan Gaur by concealing the true facts.  Upnesh Ranjan Gaur recorded his statement before the investigator that he has purchased the vehicle in question from the present complainant.  As the vehicle is having number below 100 and the same cannot be transferred in the name of Upnesh Ranjan Gaur and to keep the number intact with the complainant, the vehicle was not transferred with malafide intention of the complainant.  The investigator Royal Associates demanded various documents from the complainant and recorded the statement of Upnesh Ranjan Gaur who told that he has purchased the vehicle in question about 5 years ago. However, the vehicle in question stands in the name of the complainant.  The vehicle was owned and possessed by Upnesh Ranjan Gaur at the time of theft.  Further during the investigation, it was found that the complainant is mere a registered owner and he was not using the vehicle in question at the time of theft.  The complainant has no right to make any request to the respondent to pay the amount of compensation.  Since there was violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the respondent has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant and the complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.        We have heard the arguments advanced by the ld. Counsel for both the parties at length and we have also gone through the entire relevant material available on the case file carefully & minutely.

4.        Ld. Counsel for the respondent has argued that  the complainant was not having any insurable interest with the vehicle at the time of obtaining the policy from the respondent and the vehicle in question was already sold by the complainant.  FIR no.63 dated 3.3.2014 was lodged by Upnesh Ranjan Gaur and from the bare perusal of the FIR, he himself stated that he parked his Bolero outside of his house and at about 3.15 am when he checked the vehicle, he found the vehicle missing.  The claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated vide letter dated 23.12.2014 as the complainant has already sold the vehicle to Upnesh Ranjan Gaur and the policy in question has been obtained in the name of the present complainant by Upnesh Ranjan Gaur by concealing the true facts.  Upnesh Ranjan Gaur recorded his statement before the investigator that he has purchased the vehicle in question from the present complainant.  As the vehicle is having number below 100 and the same cannot be transferred in the name of Upnesh Ranjan Gaur and to keep the number intact with the complainant, the vehicle was not transferred with malafide intention of the complainant.  The investigator Royal Associates demanded various documents from the complainant and recorded the statement of Upnesh Ranjan Gaur who told that he has purchased the vehicle in question about 5 years ago. However, the vehicle in question stands in the name of the complainant.  The vehicle was owned and possessed by Upnesh Ranjan Gaur at the time of theft.  Further during the investigation, it was found that the complainant is mere a registered owner and he was not using the vehicle in question at the time of theft.  The complainant has no right to make any request to the respondent to pay the amount of compensation.  Since there was violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the respondent has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant and the complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation.

          Ld. Counsel for the complainant has also submitted that the complainant is the registered owner of vehicle no.HR-09G-0040 and the same was insured with the respondent for the period w.e.f. 30.11.2013 to 29.11.2014 vide policy no.261600/31/2014/4540.  Since the complainant was/is residing in Gurgaon due to his business purposes, so the complainant asked his friend Upnesh Ranjan to maintain, use and lookafter the vehicle so that the vehicle may not remain idle and thus, the vehicle in question was lookafter by the said Upnesh Ranjan who parked the vehicle at his residence.  But unfortunately during the intervening night of 2/3.3.2014 the said vehicle was stolen by some unknown person.  He immediately informed the police at 100 number regarding the theft of the vehicle.  Later-on FIR no.63 dated 3.3.2014 u/s 379 IPC was lodged with the concerned police station.  The complainant on 5.3.2014  also informed the respondent regarding the theft of the vehicle and the intimation was duly received by the respondent under rubber stamp of the company.  The complainant also lodged the claim by completing all the necessary formalities and by submitting all the required documents including untraced report.  The investigator Royal Associates vide letter dated 13.3.2014 also demanded many documents which were submitted and on receipt of the same, the respondent assured that the claim will be settled at the earliest.  The investigator got some blank papers signed from Upnesh Ranjan assuring that he will record favourable statement which in future will help the registered owner of the vehicle for obtaining claim from the respondent.   But after receiving the repudiation letter dated 23.12.2014, the complainant came to know that the investigator at his own has mentioned regarding sale and purchase of the vehicle in question in between the registered owner and Upnesh Ranjan.  The investigator favouring the interest of the respondent has made a false report regarding sale and purchase of the vehicle.   The respondent has wrongly and illegally repudiated the claim only to harass and humiliate the complainant. The complainant is entitled to get the claim amount alongwith interest and compensation. 

          The vehicle no. HR-09G-0040 was insured with the respondent for the period 30.11.2013 to 29.11.2014 and during the validity of the insurance policy, the vehicle was stolen.

 

          In the present case, the respondent has denied the claim to the complainant on the ground that the vehicle was sold by the complainant to Upnesh Ranjan.  So, the complainant and Upnesh have no insurable interest against the policy in question and the claim was rightly repudiated.

 

          But we find no force in the contentions raised by the ld. Counsel for the respondent since the RC and insurance policy still exist in the name of the complainant Kiran Pal and it is Kiran Pal who has filed the present complaint and there will be no hitch on the part of the insurance company to make the payment of insured sum to Kiran Pal, insured of the vehicle in question. In our view, the complainant is entitled to get the amount of  Rs.2,52,000/- from the respondent. Accordingly, we hereby direct the respondent to make the payment of Rs.2

2,52,000/- (Rs.two lacs fifty two thousand) to the complainant Kiran Pal alongwith interest at the rate of 09% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint till realization and further to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.5,000/- (Rs.five thousands) for rendering deficient services, for causing unnecessary mental agony and harassment.  However, the complainant is hereby directed to submit letter of subrogation, indemnity bond and affidavits for the purpose of transfer of RC of the vehicle in question in the name of the respondent insurance company.

 

 

 

          With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed.

 

          Certified copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

 

(Prabha Wati)        (DV Rathi)                 (Nagender Singh-President)

Member DCDRF        Member DCDRF                   DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced:17.09.2015