DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016
Case No.528/2012
Sh. Rajbir Singh
S/o Shri Rampal
H.No. 192, Village- Dindarpur.,
Najafgarh, New Delhi-110043 ….Complainant
Versus
Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.
through its Manager
60, Okhla Industrial Estate,
New Delhi-1110001
Also at:
City Centre, First Floor,
Opposite IB Collage,
Panipat, Haryana-132053 ….Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 03.10.12 Date of Order : 14.01.19
Coram:
Sh. R.S. Bagri, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Naina Bakshi, Member
ORDER
Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant had taken a Motor Insurance Policy covering risk of theft and damage due to accident for his car bearing No. DL-1-YB-3444, Engine No.4454740 from OP on 11.04.11 which was valid till 11.04.12 with the Insured Declared Value of Rs.2,70,000/- for which the complainant paid Rs.12,806/- as premium. It is submitted that 29.06.11 the insured car/vehicle met with an accident and the matter was reported to the OP, the OP lodged the claim of the complainant vide claim No. 2111112726 and appointed a surveyor to assess the loss to vehicle due to the accident. The surveyor approached the complainant and collected all the relevant documents from the complainant and also got the signature of the driver and the complainant on some blank papers and told the complainant that he had assessed the vehicle as ‘total loss’ and the complainant will get the claim amount within one month. In the month of December, 2011 the complainant received a letter from the OP and was surprised to know that the OP had repudiated the claim on flimsy ground, that the complainant had sold the insured vehicle to the driver two year prior to the accident and this reason claim of the complainant is not sustainable. It is submitted that the complainant submitted all the ownership documents and affidavit of the driver stating that the vehicle was never sold and the driver Mr. Kaptan Singh and Surinder Singh has nothing to do with the vehicle and they were employed by him as a driver. The complainant received another letter from the OP in month of January, 2012 in which the OP had taken the same plea and repudiated the claim of the complainant. Hence, pleading deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP the complainant has filed the present complaint for the following reliefs:
- Direct the OP to pay to the complainant the Insured Declared Value/Claim amount of Rs.2,70,000/- alongwith 18% interest.
- Direct the OP to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant .
- Direct the OP to pay a cost of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant .
In the written statement OP has inter-alia stated that the OP had issued a Reliance Passenger Carrying Vehicle Package Policy to the complainant vide policy No.2005712338000002 for the vehicle No. DL-IVB-3444 Maruti Wagon R for the period from 12.04.11 to 11.04.12. It is submitted that the said vehicle met with an accident on 28.06.11. The accident claim was lodged thereafter an investigator was duly appointed, who investigated and assessed the loss and submitted its report. On investigation, it was found that the complainant had sold the vehicle to one Mr. Kaptan Singh S/o Sh. Kartar Singh on 26.09.08, and after getting full consideration and that Mr. Kaptan had further sold the vehicle to Mr. Surinder S/o Sh. Chander Singh on 31.03.10 after getting the full consideration. The complainant and Sh. Kaptan Singh executed the said sale by way of an affidavit for sale and purchase duly signed by both the parties where the complainant has on oath stated that “I have sold the above said vehicle to Sh. Kaptan Singh S/o Sh. Katar Singh R/o Village and P.O. Dadri District and Tehsil Jhajjar, Haryana and received an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- by cash”. It is submitted that that said affidavit clearly reflected that the complainant had sold his vehicle to Mr. Kaptan Singh for a consideration of Rs.1,25,000/- and hence there exist no insurable interest of the present complainant. It is submitted that the OP vide letter dated 10.01.123 and 12.12.11 sent notice and then repudiated the present claim stating the complainant lacks insurable interest in the said vehicle and hence, not entitled to claim any benefit of the insurance. OP has prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
No rejoinder has been filed to the written statement of OP.
Complainant has filed his affidavit in evidence. On the other hand, affidavit of Sh. Naresh Kumar, Dy. Manager has been filed in evidence on behalf of the OP.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties.
We have heard the arguments on behalf of the parties and have also gone through the file very carefully.
The complainant has filed the copy of insurance policy dated 11.04.11 as Ex. CW-1/A. The OP issued the insurance policy for the period from 12.04.11 to 11.04.12 as Ex. CW-1/B. The complainant filed the police report dated 29.06.11 which we mark as Annexure-I for the purposes of identification. The OP vide letter dated 12.02.11 issued a letter to the complainant repudiating the claim as Ex. CW-1/3. The complainant sent a legal notice dated 23.01.12 to the OP which we mark as Annexure-II for the purposes of identification. The complainant vide letter dated 12.12.11 requested the OP to release the claim amount in the name of the complainant. The OP vide letter dated 10.01.12 informed the complainant as:
“You are the Registered Owner and insured of the Vehicle No. DL-1-YB-3444 but as per available documents on record it was reveled that you had sold the said vehicle to Mr. Kaptan Singh S/o Sh Kartar Singh on 26/9/2018 after getting full consideration against the sale of said vehicle vide your’s affidavit dated 26/09/2018 duly notarized and further admitted that you will be responsible to pay all the Dues, NOC, Taxes, Challan and accident claim etc if any upto 26/09/2018 and there after purchase shall be responsible for the same . Hence there is no insurable interest at your’s end and your’s insurable interest seized moment when you have sold the vehicle to Mr. Kaptan Singh.
In view of the above we express our inability to process further as claim does not fall within the purview of terms and conditions of the policy issued to you. But if you have any nothing afresh to say in the matter, please reply this letter within 10 days from the receipt of this letter failing which we shall presume that you have nothing to say in the matter and same would be deemed to be repudiated without any further communication to you in this regard. Please treat this as our final notice.”
The OP has filed the investigation and detective agency report as Annexure-B. The finding of the investigator are as follows:
“On the basis of said findings and documentary evidence, we are of the opinion that date, time and place of incident seems to be genuine. Name of driver as Mr. Rajesh Kumar also found genuine. But registered owner and insured Mr. Rajbir Singh has no interest as the car as he already sold said car to Mr. Kaptan Singh on 26/09/18. Kaptan Singh further sold it to Mr. Surender Singh on 31/03/2010. Since 31/03/2010 Surender Singh S/o Sh. Chander Bhan and his brother MR. Rajesh Kumar actual owner of the car. Insurer may deal with the claim as per terms and conditions of policy, keeping in view of above said findings. This report is issued without prejudice.”
“The OP filed the affidavit of Sh. Rajbir Singh for sale and purchase dated 26.09.18 of the vehicle as Annexure-C in which it is mentioned that “ I have sold the vehicle to Sh. Kaptan Singh S/o Shri Kartar Singh R/o Village & P.O. Dadari, Distt & Tehsil Jhajjar, Haryana and received an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- by cash…..”
The OP has filed a written statement dated 05.11.11 of Sh. Surender Singh wherein he has mentioned that Mr. Rajbir Singh sold the vehicle to Sh. Kaptan Singh and from Kaptan Singh he had purchased the vehicle. He was driving the vehicle himself and also was running the said vehicle for call centre.
In view of the above, documents filed by the parties it is evident that as per the surveyor report as Annexure-B (Colly) that the registered owner and the insured Mr. Rajbir Singh has no interest in the car, as he already sold the said car to Mr. Kaptan Singh on 26.09.08. Kaptan Singh further sold to Mr. Surender Singh on 31.03.10.
It is clear from the documents filed by the parties that the complainant is a not a consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1996 as the complainant had already sold the vehicle on 26.08.08. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the of OP. The complaint filed by the complainant is frivolous. Accordingly we dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on 14.01.2019
