Haryana

Sonipat

CC/148/2015

KAPTAN S/O RAM MEHAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

KULDEEP PANWAR

25 Apr 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

 

 

Complaint No.148 of 2015

Instituted on: 05.05.2015                 

Date of order: 25.04.2016

 

Kaptan son of Ram Mehar resident of H.No.614/18, Mundlana, tehsil Gohana, distt. Sonepat.

…Complainant.           Versus

Reliance General Insurance SCO 400, 401, 402, Second Floor, HDFC Bank Ltd. Model Town, Delhi road, Rohtak-124001 through its Branch Manager.

                                      …Respondent.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by:Sh.Kuldeep Parmar Advocate for complainant.

          Sh.Joginder Kuhar, Adv. for respondent.

 

Before    :Nagender Singh-President. 

          Prabha Wati-Member.

         

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondent alleging himself to be the registered owner of Mahindra Scorpio bearing no.HR11-E/7797

which was insured with the respondent vide cover note no.W02251409664  for Rs.8,50,000/- for the period w.e.f. 26.2.2014 to 25.2.2015 and unfortunately, the said vehicle met with an accident on 1.2.2015 and at that time, the said vehicle was being driven by Rakesh son of Balwan.  The vehicle was shifted to Lohchb Motor Co. Ltd. where it was told that the vehicle is totally damaged and they have given the estimate of repair to the tune of Rs.1052848/-.  The complainant immediately on 2.2.2015 has informed the respondent in this regard and has completed all the formalities by submitting all the required documents.  The respondent was requested by the complainant several times to make the payment of the claim amount, but of no use and even the legal notice dated 1.4.2015 served upon the respondent by the complainant has not brought any fruitful result and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondent and this wrongful act of the respondent has caused unnecessary mental agony and harassment to the complainant. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        In reply, the respondent has submitted that the complainant has no insurable interest as at the time of alleged accident, the vehicle in question was sold to and used by one Rakesh without the transactions being effected in the RC as well as in the insurance policy.   As per Indian Motor Tariff in case of transfer of ownership of the vehicle, the transferee shall apply within 14 days from the date of transfer in writing under recorded delivery to the insurer who has insured the vehicle with the details of registration of the vehicle, the date of transfer of the vehicle, previous owner of the vehicle and the number & date of the insurance policy so that the insurer may make the necessary changes in his record.  But in the present case the vehicle in question was sold to and used by one Rakesh without the said transactions being effected in RC as well as in the insurance policy and the same is violation of Indian Motor Tariff.  No FIR or DDR has been lodged in respect of the alleged accident despite the fact that the accident took placed with some tractor trolley.  The claim of the complainant has been repudiated vide letter dated 28.4.2015 as the claim could not be settled due to non-holding of insurable interest by the complainant as the vehicle was sold to any used by some other person.  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 learned counsel for both the parties at length.  All the documents have been perused very carefully and minutely.

         Ld. Counsel for the complainant that in the ill-fated accident which has taken place on 1.2.2015, the vehicle of the complainant was totally damaged.  The repairer has given the estimate of repair to the tune of Rs.1052848/-.  The complainant has requested the respondent to make the payment of the claim amount considering the claim on total loss basis, but of no use and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.

         On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the respondent has submitted that the complainant has no insurable interest as at the time of alleged accident, the vehicle in question was sold to and used by one Rakesh without the transactions being effected in the RC as well as in the insurance policy.   As per Indian Motor Tariff in case of transfer of ownership of the vehicle, the transferee shall apply within 14 days from the date of transfer in writing under recorded delivery to the insurer who has insured the vehicle with the details of registration of the vehicle, the date of transfer of the vehicle, previous owner of the vehicle and the number & date of the insurance policy so that the insurer may make the necessary changes in his record.  But in the present case the vehicle in question was sold to and used by one Rakesh without the said transactions being effected in RC as well as in the insurance policy and the same is violation of Indian Motor Tariff.  No FIR or DDR has been lodged in respect of the alleged accident despite the fact that the accident took placed with some tractor trolley.  The claim of the complainant has been repudiated vide letter dated 28.4.2015 as the claim could not be settled due to non-holding of insurable interest by the complainant as the vehicle was sold to any used by some other person.  The complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation.

          We have perused the Estimate of Repair (Ex.C4) given by Lohchab Motor Co. Pvt. Ltd.  dated 7.2.2015 in respect of the vehicle no.HR11E/7797 very carefully and the said repairer has issued the estimate of repair to the tune of Rs.1052848.  Whereas the vehicle in question was insured with IDV of Rs.8,50,000/- w.e.f. 26.2.2014 to 25.2.2015 and the vehicle in question has met with an accident during the validity of the insurance policy on 1.2.2015.

          We have perused the surveyor report of Amit Kumar very carefully.  The Assessment made by the surveyor is as under:-

 

ASSESSMENT SUMMARY		LIABILITY TABLE
Depreciated part cost including taxes and other levies	645855.86	Total Bill amount	0.00
Total labour including taxes	84213.82	Insurance company’s liability	673069.68
Add Towing	0.00	Insured’s liability	-673069.68
Less excess clause	2000.00
Less Voluntary excess clause	0.00
Less Salvage	55000.00
Less Discounts	0.00
Net Claim Amount	673069.68

 

          The IDV of the vehicle as per insurance policy valid and effective for the period 26.2.2014 to 25.2.2015 was Rs.8,50,000/- and the surveyor has assessed the insurance company’s liability to the tune of Rs.673069/- i.e. the loss more-than 75% of the total IDV.

          We have also perused the photographs of the vehicle which met with an accident and these photographs also fully supports the case of the complainant that the vehicle is totally damaged and is not in a repairable condition and the complainant has suffered the total loss in respect of the vehicle no.HR11E/7797.

          But in the present case, the stand taken by the respondent for non-settling the claim of the complainant is that the complainant has no insurable interest as at the time of alleged accident as the vehicle in question was sold to and used by one Rakesh without the transactions being effected in the RC as well as in the insurance policy. 

 

          In the present case, one Rakesh son of Balwan has tendered his affidavit in support of the case of the complainant deposing therein that he never purchased the vehicle in question from the complainant Kaptan.  Earlier Kaptan was the owner of the vehicle and till date also, Kaptan is the owner of the vehicle in question.

 

          Ld. Counsel for the complainant has relied upon the case law titled as M/s Enfield India Ltd. NP Singh, CPC 1994(1) Page 372 wherein it has been held by our own Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana, Chandigarh that A person in whose name a vehicle stands registered is its owner for the purpose of the insurance of the said vehicle-The vehicle remained temporarily  in possession of a third party does not prove that its real owner has been divested of its ownership-Respondent was rightly held entitled to be compensated by the District Forum.

 

     We find force in the above cited law. We have perused the insurance policy/cover note and RC of the vehicle no.HR11E/7797  which still stands in the name of Kaptan complainant.  In our view, the respondent has avoided the payment of the legal and genuine claim of the complainant, for which, the complainant was legally entitled to because the insurance policy was valid and effective w.e.f. 26.2.2014 to 25.2.2015 and the vehicle has met with an accident on 1.2.2015 i.e. within the validity of the insurance policy.  Thus, we have no hesitation in allowing the present complaint by holding that the complainant is entitled to get the amount of Rs.8,50,000/- (Rs.Eight lacs fifty thousand) from the respondent.

 

     The perusal of the RC of vehicle no.HR11E/7797 shows that the vehicle was financed with Cholamandlam  INV and Fin. Co.Ltd.  It is not clear from the file whether the complainant has cleared the finance liability or the finance company has issued any No Due Certificate or No Objection Certificate to the complainant in respect of the financed vehicle.  Thus, we hereby directed the respondent insurance company to first make the payment of Rs.8,50,000/- to the complainant 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.five thousands for deficient services, harassment and further to pay Rs.five thousand under the head of litigation expenses.  It is also directed to the complainant that on receipt of the claim amount from the respondent insurance company, the complainant shall clear the finance liability of the financier in respect of the vehicle no.HR11E/7797. The complainant is also directed to furnish the NOC to the respondent insurance company enabling him to make the payment of the claim amount in his favour.

 

    Further it is made clear here that the complainant shall not claim the salvage of the vehicle in question and it will belong to the respondent insurance company.  The complainant is

also directed to furnish form 29,30, letter of subrogation, indemnity bond in respect of the vehicle bearing no.HR11E/7797 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)                    (Nagender Singh)

Member, DCDRF                      President

    SNP                             DCDRF SNP.

ANNOUNCED: 25.04.2016