Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 401.
Instituted on : 07.10.2013.
Decided on : 21.05.2015.
Balbir Singh Dagar r/o H.No.224, Jharoda Kalan, New Delhi-110072 at present village-Kultana, Teh. Sampla, Distt. Rothak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Rohtak through its Branch Manager.
- Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Regd. Office 19, Reliance Centre, Watchand Hirachand Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400001.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT.
MS. KOMAL KHANNA, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.D.K.Antil, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Gulshan Chawla, Advocate for the opposite parties.
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 Maruti-800 car bearing registration no.DL-4CA-2692 which was insured with the opposite party for the period from 30.1.2010 to 31.01.2011 for a sum of Rs.65000/-. It is averred that on 02.06.2010 the relative of the complainant namely Krishan Kumar had taken the vehicle for his personal work and parked the vehicle in the parking of PGIMS, Rohtak and properly locked the same and when he came back he did not find the vehicle at the spot. Thereafter he informed the complainant and also intimated the police and FIR No.203 dated 4.6.2010 was got registered in P.S.Urban Estate Rohtak. The opposite party was informed timely and the complainant executed all the necessary documents for insurance claim but the opposite party had not settled the genuine and lawful claim of the complainant despite his repeated requests. It is averred that the act of opposite party is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. It is averred that the complainant has served a legal notice dated 7.5.2012 to the opposite party but to no effect. As such it is averred that the opposite party may kindly be directed to make the insurance claim of Rs.65000/- alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses.
2. On notice, opposite parties appeared and filed their written reply submitting therein that the complainant is only registered owner of the vehicle but the actual ownership is with Krishan Kumar s/o Randhir Singh. That the complainant has already sold the vehicle to Krishan Kumar and now complainant has no insurable interest in the vehicle and has no cause of action to file the present complaint. It is averred that the complainant has failed to submit the required documents for settlement of the claim despite repeated letters. It is averred that the alleged theft took place on 02.06.2010 and FIR was lodged on 04.06.2010 i.e. after the span of 2 days and had intimated the opposite party after 14 days and has violated the terms and conditions of the policy. It is averred that there does not exist insurable interest of the complainant at the time of taking policy as well as at the time of the loss. Hence the complainant is not entitled for any compensation. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied. Opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
3. Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.
4. Complainant in his evidence tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8 and has closed his evidence. Ld. counsel for the opposite parties tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R14 and has closed his evidence.
5. We have heard ld. counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. In the present case it is not disputed that as per cover note Ex.C4 the vehicle of the complainant was insured with the opposite party in the name of Balbir Singh i.e. complainant for the period from 30.01.2010 to 31.12.2011 and the IDV of the vehicle is Rs.65000/- and as per copy of FIR dated 04.06.10 Ex.C2 the vehicle had been stolen on 03.06.2010 and that the complainant had filed a claim with the opposite party. Untrace report Ex.C1 is also placed on file. As per copy of R.C. Ex.C6 the owner of the vehicle is Balbir Singh. The complainant has filed the claim with the opposite party but the opposite party has not settled the claim on the ground that the complainant has no insurable interest in the vehicle. To support its contention that the vehicle was sold to some other person, opposite party has placed on file photocopy of “Questions for Car Claim” Ex.R10, copy of statements Ex.R11 to Ex.R13 of Krishan Kumar, Rishi Parkash and Sant Kumar respectively. On the other hand, Complainant served a legal notice Ex.C8 submitting therein that all the documents were submitted by the complainant regarding the insurance claim but the alleged legal notice was not replied by the opposite party. Complainant has also placed on record copies of documents Ex.C4 insurance policy and Ex.C6 R.C. to prove that the documents were still in the name of complainant Balbir.
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 complainant was no insurable interest in the vehicle and that there was delay in informing the opposite party as well as to the company. To prove its contention the opposite party has placed on record statements Ex.R11 to Ex.R13. But the alleged statements are merely a photocopy and are not supported with the affidavit of persons. Moreover the R.C. and insurance policy still exists in the name of complainant. Hence the opposite party failed to prove the fact that the complainant had sold the vehicle 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. Therefore in view of the aforesaid law it is not proved on file that the complainant Balbir had sold the vehicle to Krishan Kumar. Regarding the delayed intimation to the police it is observed that the theft had taken place on 03.06.2010 and the FIR was lodged on 04.06.2010 and regarding intimation to the opposite party we have observed the Motor Claim Form Ex.R9 whereby no date of intimation is mentioned hence it is not proved that there was delayed intimation to the police or to the opposite party. We have also placed reliance upon the law cited in 2014(2)CLT 447 titled as Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Manoj whereby Hon’ble Haryana State Commission, Panchkula has held that: “Repudiation on the ground that there was delay of eleven days in lodging the FIR and delay of 33 days in giving intimation to the Insurance Company-Whether violation of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy-Held-no-FIR lodged and intimation was also given to the Insurance Company-thus, it is amply proved that the vehicle was stolen and could not be traced-It was a genuine claim of the complainant-Appeal dismissed”, as per 2011-4PLR of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ravi Dutt Sharma has held that : “Merely because there was a delay on the part of the insured to inform the petitioner-company would not be a reason enough to decline or repudiate the claim and it is further held that Insurance companies are not acting fairly in all such matters after charging huge premium-Intention is always to repudiate the claim on one ground or the other”. In view of the aforesaid law which are applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case it is observed that the non settlement of the claim of the complainant by the opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service and the opposite parties are liable to pay the insurance claim to the complainant.
8. In view of the aforesaid findings and discussions, it is observed that opposite parties shall pay the I.D.V. of vehicle i.e. Rs.65000/- (Rupees sixty five thousand only) along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 07.10.2013 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 parties failing which the opposite party shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a. on the awarded amount 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:
21.05.2015.
................................................
Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President
..........................................
Komal Khanna, Member.
