DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC. No. 35 of 04-02-2009<br /> Decided on : 17-09-2009 <br /> <br /> Pawan Kumar aged about 32 years S/o Sh. Krishan Gopal, R/o Mallan Colony, Gali No. 1, Gidderbaha. District Mukatsar.<br /> .... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1.Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office, Ludhiana through its Authorised Representative.<br /> 2.Reliance General Insurance, SCO 212-214, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh, through its Authorised Representative<br /> 3.Magma Leasing Limited, Ist Floor, Above City Centre, Near Tin Koni, G.T. Road, Bathinda, through its Legal Officer ...opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM <br /> <br /> Sh. George, President<br /> Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member<br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh. Sanjay Behani, counsel for the complainant<br /> For the Opposite parties : Sh.Sunder Gupta, counsel, for opposite parties No. 1 & 2.<br /> Sh. J S Kohli, counsel for opposite party No. 3. <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> GEORGE, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> 1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with the allegations against the opposite parties that he purchased a Tavera Car bearing Registration No. PB-30-E-4683, Engine No. 45324, Chassis No. 45191 from M/s. Data Motors, G.T. Road, Jallandhar with financial assistance of opposite party No. 3 by taking loan and the said vehicle is hypothecated with opposite party No. 3. After purchase of the vehicle, he got it insured vide Policy No. 2001382311102639 dated 24-4-08 valid upto 23-4-09 with opposite parties No. 1 & 2 against IDV of Rs. 5,40,000/- and paid a premium of Rs. 17,148/-. On the intervening night of 6/7th August, 2008, his said car when it was being driven by Sh. Jagsir Singh, met with an accident with a canter bearing No. RJ-13-GA-1407 within the revenue limits of Hanumangarh Town and the same was totally damaged. FIR No. 437 dated 7.7.08 was lodged in this context. The complainant lodged claim with opposite parties No. 1 & 2 and furnished all the requisite documents. The opposite parties No. 1 & 2 assured the complainant to honour his lawful claim and on their assurance, he brought above said car from the place of accident to police station with crane and paid Rs. 4200/- to the owner of the crane. Thereafter he brought the said car from Hanumangarh to Jallandhar at the showroom of Dada Motors, Jallandhar and paid Rs. 4500/- as towing charges to the owner of Truck No. PB-30-CZ-471. M/s. Dada Motors, Jallandhar also charged a sum of Rs. 20,000/- in advance from him. The opposite parties No. 1 & 2 vide their letter dated 3-10-2008 rejected his claim on the basis of flimsy ground that he has allegedly sold his vehicle to Sh. Jagdish Rai and received the full payment and his interest in the policy is ceased. He asserted that he never sold his vehicle to any person nor he has any concern with the said person namely Jagdish Rai rather he is still owner of the car in question and is paying installments of loan to opposite party No. 3. The complainant averred that the repudiation of claim by the opposite parties is totally wrong, illegal, arbitrary, nonest and not binding upon his rights and he prayed for issuing directions to opposite parties No. 1 & 2 to honour his lawful claim and to pay him damages on account of mental tension, agony, botheration, harassment etc., to the tune of Rs. 3,00,000/- alongwith litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 11,000/-.<br /> 2. The opposite parties No. 1 & 2 filed their written version raising legal objections that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the replying opposite parties as the complainant has transferred the insured vehicle to Sh. Jagdish Rai @ Jagseer Rai R/o Gidderbaha without any intimation to them nor any fee for transfer of vehicle has been deposited by the complainant as well as Jagseer Rai; the complainant has no insurable interest as he has delivered physical possession of the vehicle to Jagseer Rai and RC of the vehicle still exists in the name of the complainant; the complainant has got no locus standi or cause of action to file the present complaint; complaint has not been filed by competent person and the complainant is not consumer qua them. <br /> On merits, it has been admitted that vehicle in question is insured with them for private use vide policy no. 2001382311102639 from 24.4.08 to 23-4-09 but it has been denied that the complainant has any insurable interest. It has been pleaded that complainant has given actual possession of the vehicle to Jagdish Rai @ Jagseer Rai much before the accident and vehicle was being plied a Taxi in contravention of the policy terms and conditions. However, after receipt of intimation regarding accident, the Insurance company deputed its surveyor for spot survey and final survey and as per final survey report, the aforesaid vehicle is not a total loss rather as per final survey report dated 17-09-2008 of Er. Sanjeev Khanna, net loss is Rs. 2,24,546.71. It has been stated that claim of the complainant has rightly been repudiated after receipt of investigation report of M/s. Royal Associates dated 26-8-08 and the said investigator recorded the statements of witnesses who have stated that Jagdish Rai is the owner of the vehicle since last about 8/9 months. It has been pleaded that although they are not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant as he has violated the terms and conditions of the policy yet, if this Forum comes to the conclusion that they are liable to pay any compensation, then their liability is limited to Rs. 2,24,546.71 as per final survey report.<br /> 3. The opposite party No. 3 filed separate reply by submitting that complainant purchased the vehicle in question with the financial help of opposite party No. 3 and the amount of insurance claim awarded by this Forum is liable to be paid to opposite party No. 3 in order to adjust the loan amount as it has Ist charge over the vehicle in question.<br /> 4. In support of his averments contained in the complaint, the complainant has produced in evidence his affidavit Ex. C-1 and the affidavits of S/Sh. Vinod Kumar and Jagsir Singh Ex. C-2 & Ex. C-3, photocopy of driving licence Ex. C-4, photocopy of proposal cum cover note of Insurance Ex. C-5, photocopy of letter dated 3.10.08 Ex. C-6, photocopy of receipt Ex. C-7, photocopies of bills dated 7-7-08 and 11-7-08 Ex. C-8 & Ex. C-9 respectively , photocopy of F.I.R. Ex. C-10, photocopy of R.C. of vehicle Ex. C-11 and photocopies of cash receipts Ex. C-12 to Ex. C-19.<br /> 5. To controvert the evidence of the complainant, the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 produced in evidence affidavit of Sh. Kashmir Singh Ex. R-3, Investigation Report Ex. R-4, photocopies of statements of Krishan Gopal, Jagsir Rai, Vinod Kumar and Umesh Sharma Ex. R-5 to Ex. R-7 respectively, photocopy of final survey report Ex. R-9, photocopy of loss assessment Ex. R-10, photocopy of claim form Ex. R-11, affidavits of S/Sh. Satyan Kapoor and Sanjiv Khanna Ex. R-12 & Ex. R-13, photocopy of terms and conditions Ex. R-14 and opposite party No. 3 tendered two documents in evidence i.e. affidavit of Sh. Rajiv Jindal, Senior Executive Legal Ex. R-1 and photocopy of account statement Ex. R-2.<br /> 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record of the case.<br /> 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the averments made in the pleadings by both the parties as well as evidence brought on record, it appears that the accident is not in dispute. The opposite parties No. 1 & 2 have repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 03-10-2008 Ex C-6 on the ground that after receipt of intimation regarding the aforesaid accident Sh. Kashmir Singh of M/s. Royal Associate was deputed to investigate the claim who submitted his report dated 26-08-2008 Ex. R-5 wherein he has opined that Sh. Pawan Kumar has sold the vehicle in question to Sh. Jagdish Rai and as such, he has no insurable interest. The perusal of Ex. R-5 reveals that the aforesaid surveyor of the opposite parties recorded statement of Sh. Krishan Gopal, father of the complainant who has stated before him that his son has sold the car in question to Jagdish Rai of Gidderbaha 8-9 months back. The onus is upon opposite parties No. 1 & 2 to prove that the complainant has sold the vehicle in question to Jagdish Rai, which they have utterly failed to prove whereas on the other hand, the complainant in support his pleadings that he has not sold his vehicle, has placed on record photocopy of Registration Certificate Ex. C-11 which clearly reveals that vehicle in question is in the name of Pawan Kumar, complainant. Ex. C-5 is the copy of Insurance Policy which also shows that Tavera bearing PB-30E 4683 is insured for Rs. 5,40,000/- w.e.f. 24.-4.2008 to 23-04-2009 with opposite parties in the name of complainant. The statement of loan account Ex. R-2 issued by opposite party No. 3 also reveals that loan is outstanding against Pawan Kumar, complainant against the said vehicle. Even otherwise the surveyor of opposite parties No. 1 & 2 has also mentioned in this survey report Ex. R-5 that R.C. of the vehicle is in the name of Pawan Kumar, complainant. Sh. Khanna Sanjiv final surveyor of opposite parties No. 2 after verifying all the documents of the vehicle i.e. R.C. driving licence and insurance particulars has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 2,24,546.71 vide his report dated 17-09-2008 Ex. R-9 & Ex. R-10. <br /> 8. The opposite parties No. 1 & 2 have also failed to prove by adducing any evidence that the vehicle of the complainant was being plied as Taxi, at the time of accident. <br /> 9. The final surveyor as per his final report Ex. R-9 & Ex. R-10 has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 2,24,546.71. This report is not challenged in any manner by the complainant. The loss was assessed and the report Ex. R-9 & Ex. R-10 was submitted by the surveyor to the opposite parties on 17-09-2008. However, the opposite parties kept the claim pending without settling the same till date on flimsy grounds as referred to herein above and therefore, the complainant is entitled for the loss as assessed by the surveyor, in his report Ex. R-9 & Ex. R-10. In addition to this, definitely due to the conduct of the opposite parties, the complainant has undergone mental tension, agony, harassment and inconvenience as his claim has been delayed for 1-1/2 years on flimsy grounds, for which he is entitled to be compensated reasonably and adequately alongwith forced litigation expenses.<br /> 10. No other point was urged before us at the time of arguments. <br /> 11. In the result, the complaint is accepted against opposite parties No. 1 & 2 and dismissed qua opposite party No. 3 as no relief has been claimed against opposite party No. 3. The opposite parties No. 1 & 2 are directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs. 2,24,547/- alongwith interest @9% P.A. w.e.f. 07-11-2008 (The date calculated on expiry of three months period from the date of loss, a period required for processing the case in an effective manner in normal course) till final payment besides compensation to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- alongwith llitigation expenses to the tune of Rs.3,000/-.<br /> 12. The compliance of this order be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.<br /> <br /> <br /> The copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and the file be indexed and consigned. <br /> Pronounced :<br /> 17-09-2009 <br /> <br /> (George)<br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (Amarjeet Paul)<br /> Member <br />