Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 292
Instituted on : 18.06.2019
Decided on : 23.02.2024.
Abhimanyu Gautam s/o Sh. Ashok Kumar r/o H.No.1832, Urban Estate, Jind through his GPA Smt. Ranjana Raparia w/o Dharmender Singh R/o H.No.2016 Sector-2, 3 (P), Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., Reliance Centre, Lal Chand Hira Chand Marg Ballard Estate, Bombay-400001 through Managing Director.
- Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Office situated at Meghna complex, Sheela Bye-Pass, Sonepat Road, Rohtak through its Branch Manager.
- K.T.M. authorized service station Near Sector-3-4 ram Gopal Colony, Sonepat Road, Rohtak through its Manager.
…….Respondents/Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 35 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR.VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER
Present: Sh. Vikram Ohlan, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Sameer Gambhir, Advocate for the opposite party No.1 & 2.
Opposite party No.3 exparte.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case as per the complainant are that he is registered owner of a KTM motorcycle bearing No.HR-31K-4397 which was purchased by the complainant from respondent no.3 and the same was insured from the opposite party No.1 & 2 vide policy No.110521923120010982 from 19.01.2019 to 18.01.2020 for IDV Rs.129600/-. The said vehicle of the complainant met with an accident on 01.04.2019 and was badly damaged. A Case FIR No.207 dated 01.04.2019 u/s 279, 304 IPC was got registered. The complainant informed the officials of opposite party No.1 & 2 in this regard and the vehicle was got surveyed by the surveyor of the company. He prepared the estimate report to the extent of Rs.120000/- and thereafter vehicle was taken to service station of respondent no.3, but the respodnentno.1 & 2 have not granted the permission to repair the vehicle upto till date. Now the opposite party No.1 & 2 in an illegal manner have repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that he has sold the vehicle without intimation to the company. Whereas the complainant has not sold the vehicle to anyone and he is still registered owner of the vehicle and he has paid the insurance premium to the opposite party no.1 & 2. The act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay the claim amount of Rs.120000/- alongwith interest, Rs.80000/- as compensation and Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant as explained in relief clause.
2. After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No.1 & 2 appeared and filed their written reply submitting therein that complainant was not holding insurable interest in respect of the vehicle bearing no.HR31K-4397 as the vehicle bearing no.HR31K-4397 was sold to Mrs. Ranjana. The opposite party observed that the name as per policy and registration certificate is Mr. Abhimanyu Gautam, however the said vehicle is sold to and used by Mrs. Ranjana without the said transaction being effected in registration certificate as well as policy. As the complainant (Abhimanyu Gautam) had sold the vehicle, so complainant do not hold any insurable interest in respect of vehicle. Complainant had issued a NOC, a clearance certificate issued by the registration authority on 11 March 2019, in favour of Ranjana to transfer the above said vehicle. Further as per the status of Registration authority, owner name of the insured vehicle is Ranjana. Superdari of the vehicle was also taken by Ranjana. Hence the claim of the complainant has been repudiated vide letter dated 21 May 2019. It is further submitted that after intimation of claim opposite party appointed surveyor and loss assessor who assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.35305/-. But the claim of the complainant was repudiated vide letter dated 21.05.2019 as there is no contract of insurance between Ranjana Raparia and the opposite party. Mrs. Ranjana is not a consumer and the present complaint through GPA is not maintainable. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs. However, opposite party no.3 appeared on some dates but thereafter failed to appear before this Commission. As such opposite party no.3 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 04.02.2020 of this Commission.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C2 and closed his evidence on 31.05.2022. Ld. Counsel for opposite party No.1 & 2 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R13 and closed his evidence on 21.10.2022. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. The present case has been filed by the GPA holder Smt. Ranjana Raparia of Abhimanyu Gautam. The main contention of the parties is that the vehicle has been sold by the complainant to Ranjana (GPA holder of present complainant) on the date of accident. We have minutely perused the documents placed on record by both the parties. It has been submitted that vehicle has been sold by Abhimanyu Gautam s/o Sh. Ashok Kumar the complainant to Smt. Ranjana Raparia w/o Dharmender Singh GPA holder of present complainant and NOC has been issued by the registration authority on dated 09.03.2019 in favour of Ranjana Raparia. The vehicle met with an accident on dated 01.04.2019 and the claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the opposite parties vide their letter dated 21.05.2019 on the ground that insured name as per policy and registration certificate is Mr. Abhimanyu Gautam however the said vehicle is purchased and used by Mrs. Ranjana. As you have sold your vehicle, you do not hold any insurable interest. In fact the vehicle has been purchased by the GPA holder in the present case. It is further submitted that as per GR 17 “ The transferee shall apply within fourteen days from the date of transfer in writing under recorded delivery to the insurer who has insured the vehicle, with the details of the registration of the vehicle”. As per the respondent insurance company, the vehicle has not been transferred in the name of Smt. Ranjana Raparia. The respondent insurance company placed on record two vehicle registration status before this Commission as Ex.R10 & Ex.R11. In Ex.R10 the name of registered owner is mentioned as Abhimanyu Gautam and in Ex.R11 the name of owner mentioned as “Ranjana” but from perusal of both these documents it has not been established that on which date the vehicle has been transferred in the name of Ranjana. It is admitted fact that the vehicle met with an accident on 01.04.2019 so the insurance company failed to prove the fact that the GPA holder has not applied for transfer of insurance policy in her name within 14 days from the date of transfer of RC in her name. Moreover on the date of accident the registration certificate and insurance certificate is in the name of complainant Abhimanyu and the complaint has been filed through GPA Ranjana. The interest of both is same. We have also perused the law cited in Civil appeal No.2632 of 2020 of Hon’ble Supreme court of India titled as Surendra Kumar Bhilawe Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited decided on 18.06.2020 whereby Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that: “Certificate of insurance is deemed to be transferred in favour of transferee of vehicle with transfer of vehicle”. In view of the law cited above which is fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case, it is observed that repudiation of claim on this ground is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. As such opposite party is liable to pay the claim amount to the complainant. On the other hand, law cited by ld. Counsel for the opposite party No.2 in order dated 11.07.2018 of Hon’ble National commission titled as Alkeshkumar Ambalal Shah Vs. Future General India Insurance and order dated 16.11.2010 of Hon’ble National Commission in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shri Divya Prashad are not fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case. We have further perused the survey report. As per surveyor he has assessed the loss in the vehicle as Rs.35305/- and he considered damaged parts as 5, whereas the complainant has placed on record repair bill as Ex.C1. In the present complaint the survey report has been submitted by the surveyor with insurance company on 27.05.2019 mentioning therein that only 5 parts have been damaged and he assessed the loss in the vehicle in question as Rs.35305/-. Perusal of Ex.C1 itself shows that 70 parts have been changed in the repair of the vehicle and date of invoice is 28.06.2019. Meaning thereby the surveyor has not re-inspected the vehicle after its repair. He merely assessed the loss without repair of the vehicle. So there is deficiency in service on the part of insurance company as well as of surveyor. As per tax invoice Ex.C1, the complainant had spent an amount of Rs.114925/- on the repair of vehicle and Rs.4130/- on labour charges. It is also observed that model of vehicle is July 2015 and vehicle met with an accident on 01.04.2019. Hence in our view 40% depreciation is applicable on Rs.114925/- + Rs.4130/- and the opposite party No.1 & 2 are liable to pay this amount after deduction of 40% depreciation on it i.e. to pay Rs.71433/-(Rs.119055/- less 40%).
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No.1 & 2 to pay Rs.71433/-(Rupees seventy one thousand four hundred and thirty three only) alongwith interest @ 9% from the date of filing the present complaint i.e.18.06.2019 till its realisation, also to pay Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
23.02.2024.
.....................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
..........................................
Vijender Singh, Member.
