Haryana

StateCommission

A/426/2016

ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO.LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAJESH KUMAR - Opp.Party(s)

R.K.BASHAMBOO

02 Jun 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

         

                                                         First Appeal No.426 of 2016

Date of Institution: 16.05.2016

                                                               Date of Decision: 02.06.2016

 

1. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited Corporate office Sunderum towers, 45-46, Whites Road,Chennai-600014 (Service Effected through Manager/concerned officer Palm Ford, Jind Road, Opp. Delhi Public School, Rohtak.
2. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited,Riders House Plot No.136,Sector-44, Gurgaon, Haryana-122022, (Service effected through Manager/Concerned officer).
3. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited registered office 21, Patullos road,Chennai-600002.

All the appellants No.1 to 3 represented through Sh.Aneesh Bhaskaran of Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited,Subramanian building, II floor No.1,, club House road,Annasalai, Chennai-6000002.

…..Appellants

Versus

 

Rajesh Kumar S/o Sh.Dhoop Singh r/o H.No.439/29,Chotu Ram Nagar, Near Model Town, Rohtak.

                                      …..Respondent

 

CORAM:             Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.

                             Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                        

Present:              Mr.R.K.Bashamboo, Advocate counsel for appellant.

 

                                                   O R D E R

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1.      Complainant got his vehicle bearing registration No.HR 12 Q 7698 insured from the Opposite parties (O.Ps.)-appellants for IDV of Rs.3,19,725/-. The policy was valid from 21.12.2013 to 20.12.2014.  On 01.01.2014 the vehicle in question was snatched and FIR No.2 dated 01.01.2014 was registered at police station (P.S.) Lakhan Majra Rohtak.  Insured submitted his claim with the O.P., but, the same was repudiated on the ground that vehicle was sold to Anil and further to Sanjay and complainant was not having insured interest therein. 

2.      In reply appellants/O.Ps. not only raised this objection, but, also alleged that information was given to it after seven months and five days, so his claim was rightly repudiated.

3.      After hearing both the parties, learned District Consumer disputes Redressal Forum,Rohtak allowed the complaint vide impugned order dated 11.04.2016 and directed as under:-

“In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that opposite parties shall pay the insured declared value of vehicle i.e. Rs.319725/- (rupees three lac nineteen thousand severn hundred twenty five only) along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 24.03.2015 till its actual realization and shall also pay a sum of  Rs.3500/- (Rupees three thousand five hundred only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of completion of formalities by the complainant e.g. form No.26,28,29,30,35, Original R.C., Subrogation letter, indemnity Bond and Affidavit of transferee etc. to the opposite parties failing which the opposite parties shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a. on the awarded amount from the date of decision. Complaint is allowed accordingly.”

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, O.Ps.-apellants have preferred this appeal.

5.      Arguments heard.  File perused.

6.      It is argued by learned counsel for the appellants that from the perusal of FIR it is clear that vehicle in question was owned by Sanjay and complainant was not having any interest therein,  so he was not entitled for any compensation. He further argued that theft took place on 01.01.2014, but, information was given after seven months and five days.  There was inordinate delay so also he was not entitled for any compensation.  Learned District forum has failed to take into consideration this aspect, so impugned order be set aside.

7.      This argument is of no avail.  His report is also not based on any documentary evidence.  O.Ps. have miserably failed to show that this vehicle was ever sold by complainant. They have not produced any document showing that complainant ever moved registration authority to change the ownership or he executed any affidavit or any other document regarding receipt of consideration.  In the absence of any evidence to this effect it cannot be presumed on the basis of the report of investigator of insurance company that vehicle in question was sold by the complainant.  These views are also fortified by the opinion of Hon’ble National commission expressed in National Insurance co. Ltd. Vs.Shrawan Bhati, II (2008) CPJ 364 (NC) and opinion of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High court expressed in Vipin Kumar Sharma Vs. Jagwant Kaur & Ors. IV (2005) ACC 715 (DB).  

8.      Further insurance company has failed to show that on which date complainant informed about theft, whereas complainant alleged that he immediately informed insurance company.  It was the bounden duty of O.Ps. to prove this fact by cogent evidence, which they have failed to do.  So claim cannot be repudiated on this ground as opined by this Commission in first appeal No.1088 of 2015 decided on 02.05.2015 tiled as Reliance General Insurance Company Vs. Jaswant (since deceased). 

8.      More so, appellants have also failed to show that their right was adversely effected  if the claim was submitted lateron. The report about snatching of vehicle was given to the police  there and then.  Had the matter been not lodged with the police just thereafter then it could have been a different matter.  Learned District Forum has discussed this point in the impugned order and has placed reliance upon the opinion of Chandigarh Commission expressed in Upper India Carriers Vs. M/s New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. 2014(1) CLT 567, and opinion of Himahal Pradesh State Commission expressed in Bhagwanti Devi Vs.State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. 1 (2007) CPJ 458.  The findings of learned District Forum are well reasoned based on law and facts and cannot be disturbed.  Resultantly appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed in limine.

9.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.

 

June 02nd, 2016         Urvashi Agnihotri                                R.K.Bishnoi,                                                               Member                                              Judicial Member                                                         Addl. Bench                                        Addl.Bench                

S.K.