Haryana

Karnal

855/2011

Mohinder Singh S/o Ram Kishan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Oriental Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. S.S. Moonak

02 Mar 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.  

                                                          Complaint No.855 of 2011

                                                               Date of instt.: 16.12.2011

                                                          Date of decision: 02.03.2016

 

 

Mohinder  Singh son of Shri Ram Kishan, resident of House No.1233, Sector 4, Urban Estate,District Karnal.

 

.                                                                               ……..Complainant.

                                      Vs.

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited through its Divisional Manager, GT Road, Karnal.

 

 

                                                                           ……… Opposite Party.

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer

                     Protection Act.

Before          Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.                

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

Present:-        Sh.S.S.Moonak Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.A.K.Vohra Advocate for the Opposite Party.

 

ORDER:                  

 

                   This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, on the allegations that he got insured his  Swaraj Mazda bearing registration No. HR-38K-0827 with the Opposite Party, vide cover note No. 022616 which was valid from 17.7.2009 to 16.7.2010. The said vehicle was stolen on 22.6.2010  and case bearing First Information Report No.610 of 2010 was registered in that regard with the Police Station City, Karnal. The matter was reported to the Opposite Party  and necessary claim documents alongwith untraced report dated 8.11.2011 were submitted, but the Opposite Party prolonged the matter unnecessarily. Ultimately, he reached the office of Opposite Party on 5.12.2011 and personally received the letter dated 19.7.2011 vide which his claim was repudiated on the ground that he had no insurable interest. He was never given  any opportunity of hearing and the claim was  repudiated  unilaterally without assigning any reason. Therefore, there was deficiency in services and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party, due to which he suffered mental agony, pain and harassment apart from financial loss.

 

2.                 Notice of the complaint was given to the Opposite Party, who appeared and filed written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form; that the complainant has no loucs standi and cause of action to file the present complaint; that the complaint is false, frivolous, misconceived and mis directed; that the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands and that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint.

 

                   On merits, it has been submitted that investigation regarding theft of the vehicle was got conducted  by the Opposite Party from Royal Associates, who submitted report, according to which the insured Mohinder Singh had sold the vehicle to one Raj Kumar.  First information report and claim were also signed by Raj Kumar and he submitted that the vehicle was purchased by him from Mohinder Singh more than two years ago The complainant never lodged  any claim before the Opposite Party. In this way, the complainant had no insurable interest tin the vehicle, therefore, his claim was rightly repudiated, vide letter dated 19.7.2011. Thus, there was no deficiency in services on the part of the Opposite Party. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied.

 

3.                 In evidence of the complainant, his affidavit Ex.C1 and documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C6 have been tendered.

 

4.                 On the other hand, in evidence of the Opposite Party, affidavit of  Manraj  Virk Ex.O1 and documents Ex.O2 to Ex.O9 have been tendered.

 

5.                 We have appraised the evidence on record,  the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties.

 

6.                 There is no dispute that the complainant was registered owner of the vehicle bearing registration No. HR-38K-0827 and the same was insured with the Opposite Party.  As per the allegations of the complainant, the vehicle was stolen on 22.6.2010 and the First Information Report No.610 of 2010 was got recorded in that regard with the Police Station City, Karnal. It has also been alleged that the matter was reported to the Opposite Party and necessary claim documents were submitted.

 

7.                 The learned counsel for the Opposite Party put a great thrust upon the contention that First Information Report was lodged by Raj Kumar claiming himself to be the owner of the vehicle. The claim was also lodged by Raj Kumar and the complainant never lodged any claim. Raj Kumar had submitted that the vehicle was purchased by him from the complainant more than two years ago. Thus, the complainant had no insurable interest and the claim was rightly repudiated and intimation thereof was sent to the complainant, vide letter dated 19.7.2011.

 

8.                 To wriggle out of the aforesaid contention, learned consul for the complainant vehemently argued that the vehicle was never transferred to Raj Kumar and complainant continued to be the owner thereof, therefore, he had insurable interest on the date of theft of the vehicle.

 

9.                 A perusal of the letter dated 19.7.2011 Ex.C6 reveals that the complainant was informed by the Opposite Party that all relevant claim papers i.e. First Information Report, claim form and claim intimation were signed by Raj Kumar son of Sh.Om Parkash, who was not  insured and after going through the claim papers as well as investigation report, it was clear that complainant had sold the vehicle to Raj Kumar, so he had no insurable interest and the claim was repudiated.

 

10.               The  copy of the First Information Report Ex.C4, shows that Raj Kumar reported the matter  to the police regarding theft of the vehicle bearing registration No.HR-38Q-0827 from the area of  Jundla gate, Karnal and submitted that vehicle was purchased by him from  Mohinder Singh. Intimation regarding theft of the vehicle to Opposite Party was also given by Raj Kumar on 23.6.2010, the copy of which is Ex.C5. In the said document he submitted that  the vehicle was in the name of Mohinder Singh  and insured with the Opposite Party, but he claimed that vehicle was owned by him and requested for registration of his claim. The copy of the claim form is Ex.C4, which clearly shows that the claim was lodged by Raj Kumar. The report of investigator, the copy of which is Ex.O3, is also to the effect that Raj Kumar had purchased the vehicle from complainant Mohinder Singh three years prior to theft. However, there is no documentary evidence regarding sale/transfer of the vehicle by complainant to Raj Kumar.

 

11.               From the afore discussed evidence, it is crystal clear that Raj Kumar lodged First Information Report and then gave intimation to the Opposite Party and thereafter lodged claim with the Opposite Party claiming to be owner of the vehicle. The complainant never lodged any claim. Raj Kumar was neither the insured nor registered owner of the vehicle, therefore, his claim could not be granted by the Opposite Party because he had no privity of contract with the Opposite Party. Repudiation of such claim lodged by Raj Kumar was justified on the part of the Opposite Party and intimation thereof was duly given to the complainant. When no claim was lodged by the complainant, there could be no question of granting any claim to him by the Opposite Party.

 

12.               As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, we do not find any merit in the present complaint, therefore, the same is hereby dismissed. However, the complainant would be at liberty to lodge claim with the Opposite Party and establish his insurable interest on the date of theft of the vehicle. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced
dated:2.03.2016

                                                                    (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

            (Anil Sharma ) 

               Member.

 

 

 

 

Present:-        Sh.S.S.Moonak Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.A.K.Vohra Advocate for the Opposite Party.

 

                   Arguments in part heard. For remaining arguments, the case is adjourned to 2.3.2016.

Announced
dated:29.02.2016

                                                                    (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

            (Anil Sharma ) 

               Member.

Present:-        Sh.S.S.Moonak Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.A.K.Vohra Advocate for the Opposite Party.

 

                   Remaining arguments heard. Vide our separate order of the even date, the present complaint has been dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced
dated:02.03.2016

                                                                    (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

            (Anil Sharma ) 

               Member.