Haryana

StateCommission

A/219/2016

RELIANCE GEN.INSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAKESH - Opp.Party(s)

RAJNEESH MALHOTRA

17 Oct 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :     219 of 2016

Date of Institution:     15.03.2016

Date of Decision :      17.10.2016

 

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Resident of Plot No. 60, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-III, New Delhi through Claims Manager.

                                      Appellant-Opposite Party

Versus

 

Rakesh s/o Sh. Satbir Singh, Resident of Village and Post Office Kasni, Tehsil and District Jhajjar, Haryana.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Argued by:          Shri Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate for appellant.

Shri Vikrampal Pal Singh, Advocate for the respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

          Reliance General Insurance Company Limited (for short ‘the Insurance Company)-Opposite Party, is in appeal against the order dated January 12^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jhajjar (for short ‘the District Forum’) in Complaint No.169 of 2013.      

2.                Rakesh-complainant/respondent, filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with the allegations that he owned truck bearing registration No.HR-63B-3998. It was insured with the Insurance Company-Opposite Party, vide insurance policy Exhibit P-2 for the period 24.04.2012 to 23.04.2013. The Insured Declared Value of the truck was Rs.16,60,000/-. The complainant had employed Ashok Kumar-complainant as driver. During the night intervening 17/18.05.2012, the truck was parked near the house of the complainant when it was stolen. Ashok Kumar not finding the truck, informed the Police Control Room on Telephone No.100. The driver also informed the Insurance Company. It was submitted that since the driver was illiterate, he by consulting some members of the locality got First Information Report (FIR) registered showing himself to be the owner. Claim being repudiated, the complainant filed the instant complaint.

3.                The opposite party-Insurance Company, contested the complaint inter alia stating that there was unexplained delay of seven days in lodging the FIR. The truck was stolen on the intervening night of 17/18.05.2012 and the FIR was lodged on 26.05.2012 and the Insurance Company was informed on 29.05.2012. Another plea was raised that the complainant had no insurable interest in the truck as he sold the vehicle to one Ashok before theft; therefore he was not entitled to any compensation.

4.                The District Forum after hearing the parties allowed the complaint directing the opposite party-Insurance Company as under:-

“…..we allow the complaint of complainant and direct the respondent to make the payment of claim/insured declared value of Rs.16,60,000/- to the complainant as per policy Ex.R-9 along with an interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of theft i.e. 18.5.2012 till realization of final payment to the complainant subject to transfer of R.C. and subrogation letter in the name of respondent company by the complainant. However, the respondent company shall be at liberty to make the payment of awarded/ordered amount to the complainant through finance company of vehicle in question after adjustment of loan account, if hypothecated. The complainant is also entitled for a sum of Rs.5500/- on account of litigation expenses for the present unwanted and unwarranted litigation only due to the deficiency in services on the part of the respondent. The complaint stands disposed of accordingly.”

5.                Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company raised three fold arguments. Firstly, that the complainant had no insurable interest as the complainant has sold the vehicle to one Shri Sonu s/o Sh. Surender, Resident of Village Marakpur, Delhi, who could not pay the instalments to the financer. Sonu further sold the vehicle to Ashok Kumar for Rs.5.00 lacs and the remaining amount was to be paid to Citi Financial Corporation of India, which had financed the vehicle. Counsel for the appellant referred to affidavit of Ashok Kumar besides that the intimation to the National Crime Bureau was also given by Ashok Kumar stating himself to be the owner. Reference was also made to Form No.30 submitted by Ashok Kumar for transfer of vehicle in his name.

6.                Learned counsel for the complainant-respondent stated that since Ashok Kumar was illiterate and was only a driver, his signature were obtained on blank papers.

7.                The Insurance Policy Exhibit P-2 is in the name of complainant Rakesh s/o Sh. Satvir, as owner of the insured vehicle.  Only the policy itself is not sufficient. FIR Exhibit P-6/R-5 has been placed on the file which clearly shows that the complainant had sold the truck to Sonu who further sold it to Ashok Kumar. FIR was lodged by Ashok Kumar submitting himself to be the owner. Intimation to the National Crime Bureau was also given by Ashok Kumar as owner of the vehicle. Even claim with the Insurance Company has also been lodged by Ashok Kumar vide Claim Form Annexure A-2. All these facts also find support from the affidavit Exhibit R-7, duly sworn by Ashok Kumar on 14.06.2012 nearly after a month of the theft. Claim Form was lodged by Ashok Kumar claiming himself to be the owner. Except that the name of the complainant appears in the Insurance Policy, the complainant has not been able to prove from any evidence that he continued to be having insurable interest in the vehicle. The Insurance Company has written letters to the complainant viz Annexure A-5, A-6, A-7 before repudiation but he did not respond to any of them. All this consistently shows that the complainant ceased to have any insurable interest in the vehicle and it is only for that reason he did not lodge the claim with the Insurance Company. The fact that claim was lodged by Ashok Kumar with the Insurance Company also speaks that it is the Ashok Kumar who was the de facto owner of the vehicle. That besides even unexplained delay of 7 days in lodging FIR (Exhibit P-6/R-5) and 11 days delay in giving intimation to the Insurance Company. Thus, the District Forum has failed to appreciate the above stated facts into consideration and the impugned order cannot sustain.

8.                For the reasons recorded herein above, the appeal is accepted, the impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.

9.                The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced 17.10.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL