Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 780.
Instituted on : 02.12.2010.
Decided on : 01.01.2015.
Anil Kumar s/o Sh. Suraj Bhan R/o H.No.RZ-30A, New Block, Om Vihar Uttam Nagar, New Delhi at present village-Siwana, Teh. Beri, Distt. Jhajjar.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Rohtak through its Branch Manager.
……….Opposite party.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT.
MS. KOMAL KHANNA, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Ashwani Phogat, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Yogesh Sharma, Advocate for the opposite party.
ORDER
SH. JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT :
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that he is registered owner of vehicle bearing registration no.HR-19E-0688 which was financed by Tata Motors and was insured with the opposite party vide policy cover note no.2013782343002145 for the period from 29.12.2008 to 28.12.2009 for a sum of Rs.16.75Lac. It is averred that on 19.05.2009 the above said vehicle of the complainant was driven by the driver Surender who had gone to Dholhera for loading crusher in the truck. It is averred that the alleged vehicle was stolen by some unknown persons by deceiving the driver. FIR No.168 dated 21.05.2009 was registered in P.S. Mahendergarh but the vehicle could not be traced out by the police. It is averred that complainant submitted his claim with all the relevant documents with the opposite party and requested for disbursement of claim in his favour but the opposite party has been avoiding the same on one pretext or the other and had repudiated the claim vide letter dated 28.5.2010 on false grounds. It is averred that the act of opposite party is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. As such it is prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to pay the claim amount of Rs.16.75lac alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. On notice, the opposite party appeared and filed its written reply submitting therein that the complainant is not the owner in possession of the alleged vehicle no.HR-19E-0688. It is averred that there is delay in reporting the alleged loss to the police which creates doubt on the story of the complainant. It is averred that the answering opposite party has rightly repudiated the said claim as the complainant has no insurable interest in the alleged vehicle as the complainant had sold the vehicle much before the alleged theft to Ombir. It is averred that the claim of the complainant has been repudiated on the basis of the impartial and genuine survey and investigation report and after considering the real facts. It is averred that after perusal of the survey report and other documentation on record it was observed that the above mentioned policy is in the name of the complainant but the insured vehicle has been transferred in the name of Ombir more than 14 days before the material time of the theft. It is averred that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and the claim has been rightly rejected by the opposite party. It is prayed that the present complaint may kindly be dismissed with costs.
3. Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.
4. Ld. Counsel for the complainant in his evidence tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and has closed his evidence. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the opposite party in his evidence tendered affidavit Ex.R1, documents Ex.R2 to Ex.R14 & affidavits Ex.R15 & document Ex.R16 and has closed his evidence.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. In the present case insurance and theft of the vehicle is not disputed. As per copy of FIR Ex.C1/Ex.R14 the vehicle was stolen on 19.05.2009 and the FIR was lodged on 21.05.09. Complainant lodged the claim with the opposite party but the opposite party vide its letter Ex.R1 dated 28.05.2010 has repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that: “The insured vehicle has been transferred in the name of Mr. Ombir more than 14 days before the material time of theft. Thus you was not having insurable interest at the time of theft in insured vehicle and Mr.Ombir is not party to insurance contract thus none of you has right to claim said loss under the above mentioned policy and the claim was filed as no claim”. To prove its contention opposite party has placed on record copy of investigation report Ex.R8 and photocopies of statements Ex.R9 to Ex.R13. On the other hand, complainant has placed on record copy of policy Ex.C4 and copy of R.C. Ex.C5 to prove that the documents were in the name of complainant Anil which is also not disputed by the opposite party.
7. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that the claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the opposite party on the ground that at the time of theft the vehicle was sold to one Ombir and the vehicle had been transferred in the name of Mr.Ombir more than 14 days before the material time of theft and the complainant had no insurable interest in the vehicle and that there was delay in reporting the alleged loss to the police. To prove its contention the opposite party has placed on record copy of investigation report supported with statements Ex.R9 to Ex.R13. But the alleged statements are not supported with their affidavits and no document regarding sale consideration as well as transfer of R.C. in the name of Ombir has been placed on record by the opposite party. Moreover R.C. and insurance policy still exists in the name of complainant. Hence the opposite party has failed to prove the fact that the complainant had sold the vehicle to Ombir and has no insurable interest in the vehicle. In this regard as per law laid-down in II(2010) CPJ 79 titled as Tushar Kanti Sahoo Vs. NIC, Hon’ble West Bengal State Commission, Kolkata has held that: “Agreement of sale perused-Entire amount not paid by purchaser-Ownership of vehicle remains in name of complainant-Repudiation of claim unjustified-Deficiency in service proved-Order set aside-Relief granted”, as per IV(2005)ACC715(DB) titled Vipin Kumar Sharma Vs. Jagwant Kaur & Ors. Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court has observed that transfer of vehicle takes place only when requirements prescribed under Act complied with registering authority and enters same in its record and owner is a person in whose name motor vehicle stands registered in the record of registering authority”, Regarding the delayed intimation reliance has been placed upon the law cited in 2014(2)CLT 386 titled The Manager New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Yadram Hon’ble State Commission has also held that: “In case of theft of vehicle, breach of policy condition is not germane. The delay of 15 days is not significant in such a case”. Therefore in view of the aforesaid law which are applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case it is observed that repudiation of claim by the opposite party is illegal and unjustified and the complainant is entitled for the claim as per IDV of the vehicle and as per cover note Ex.C4, the IDV of the vehicle is Rs.16.75 lacs.
8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is observed that opposite party shall pay the amount of Rs.1675000/-(Rupees sixteen lac seventy five thousand only) along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e.02.12.2010 till its actual realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.2200/-(Rupees two thousand two hundred only) as litigation expenses to the complainant maximum within one month from the date of completion of formalities by the complainant e.g. transfer of R.C. & Subrogation letter etc. to the opposite party failing which the awarded amount shall fetch interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of decision. Complaint is allowed accordingly.
9. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.
10. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
01.01.2015.
................................................
Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President
..........................................
Komal Khanna, Member.
