Haryana

Sonipat

CC/437/2015

Jagdish S/o Lal Chand - Complainant(s)

Versus

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Bhopal Singh

17 Aug 2016

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

 

 

Complaint No.437 of 2015

Instituted on: 27.11.2015                 

Date of order: 17.08.2016

 

Jagdish son of Lal Chand, resident of village Pinana, tehsil and distt. Sonepat.

…Complainant.           Versus

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. through its Branch Manager, service to be effected at Gohana road, Sonepat near Main Post office and Telephone Exchange, Sonepat.

 

                                       …Respondent.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by:Sh.Bhopal Singh Advocate for complainant.

          Sh.Surender Malik, Adv. for respondent.

         

 

Before    :Nagender Singh-President. 

          Prabha Wati-Member.

          J.L. Gupta-Member.

         

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondent alleging himself to be the registered owner of a  car no.HR10V-3110 which was earlier having temporary No.PB-11BA(T)-7238 and the same was insured with the respondent for the period w.e.f. 28.3.2013 to 27.3.2014.  Unfortunately on 9.5.2013, the said car caught fire and was completely burnt in all manner.  NCR report no.224 dated 9.5.2013 was registered with PS Sadar, Rohtak.  The complainant has submitted his claim and submitted all the required documents with the respondent.  But despite this, the respondent has repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 10.7.2015 on the ground that at the time of said accident, RC of the said car was not valid as the RC was issued to the complainant on 4.9.2013.  Thus, 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.        The respondent has filed the reply submitting therein that the repudiation of the claim of the complainant is legal because the vehicle was being plied without valid registration certificate as the temporary number is only for one month and beyond one month vehicle only can be plied with a valid registration certificate and without RC, the vehicle cannot be plied.  The complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the policy and provisions of Motor Vehicle Act as well.  The repudiation of the claim of the complainant is legal and justified as the complainant is not entitled for any relief & compensation and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.        We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties at length.  All the documents have been perused very carefully and minutely.

         Ld. Counsel for the respondent has submitted that the repudiation of the claim of the complainant is legal because the vehicle was being plied without valid registration certificate as the temporary number is only for one month and beyond one month vehicle only can be plied with a valid registration certificate and without RC, the vehicle cannot be plied.  The complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the policy and provisions of Motor Vehicle Act as well.  The repudiation of the claim of the complainant is legal and justified as the complainant is not entitled for any relief & compensation.

         We have perused the insurance policy Ex.R1 very carefully and as per this policy, the vehicle (new) having engine no.GDM645668 and chasis no.LDM795841 model 2013 was insured with the respondent for the period 28.3.2013 to 27.3.2014 and as per the complainant, temporary no.PB-11BA(T) 7238 was issued in respect of the above said car.  The above said temporary number was valid for one month.  The incident of fire with the car has taken place on 9.5.2013.  As per document ExR6, RC of the car in question was issued by the Registering Authority, Sonepat on 4.9.2013.

         Now the question arises for consideration before this Forum is whether the complainant is entitled for any amount and if so, to what amount?

         In our view, the complainant is entitled to get the claim amount from the respondent insurance company because this observations of this Forum is fortified by the decision of the Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana, Panchkula rendered in First appeal no.487 of 2015 decided on 4.2.2015 titled as Hawaldar Harphool Singh Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.  In this case also, similar was the position as temporary registration number of the vehicle was valid from 13.7.2013 to 13.8.2013 and the complainant was plying his vehicle without any RC.  On the date of theft i.e. 5.9.2013 the vehicle was not having any temporary or permanent registration number so his claim was repudiated.  But the Hon’ble State Commission has held the repudiation of the claim to be wrong and illegal and further held entitled the complainant for the insured amount of Rs.40139/- etc.

         So, taking into consideration the above said law of the Hon’ble State Commsision, we also find force in the present case.  The IDV of the complainant’s vehicle was Rs.315000/- and so, in our view, the complainant is entitled to get the said amount from the respondent insurance company. Thus, we hereby direct the respondent insurance company to make the payment of Rs.3,15,000/- (Rs.three lacs fifteen thousand) in lumpsum to the complainant, within a period of 60 days from the date of passing of this order, failing which the above said amount shall fetch interest at the rate of 09% per annum from the date of passing of this order till its realization.  The complainant is also directed to submit the letter of subrogation, letter of indemnity bond, form 29 and 30 to the respondent insurance company within a period of 20 days from the date of passing of this order and the period of 60 days of the respondent shall start from the date the complainant submits the above said documents with 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 costs.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

 

(Prabha Wati) (J.L.Gupta)        (Nagender Singh)

Member,         Member,           President

                                   DCDRF SNP.

ANNOUNCED: 17.08.2016