Haryana

StateCommission

A/151/2016

ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SATYAWAN - Opp.Party(s)

J.P.NAHAR

24 Nov 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  : 151 of 2016

Date of Institution: 18.02.2016

Date of Decision : 24.11.2016

 

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited through its Regional Branch Office Manager, Jawahar Market, D-Park, Model Town, Rohtak.

                                                          Appellant-Opposite Party

 Versus

 

Satyawan son of Shri Maha Singh, resident of Village Baliyan, Tehsil and District Rohtak.

                                                         Respondent- Complainant

                                                                                     

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.

 

Argued by:          Shri J.P. Nahar, Advocate for the appellant

                             Anil Kumar Clerk of Shri Amit Chaudhary, Advocate for the respondent

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

By filing this appeal, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited-opposite party (in short, ‘Insurance Company’) has challenged the order dated December 09^th, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak (in short, ‘District Forum’) whereby complaint filed by Satyawan-complainant was allowed. Operative part of the order is reproduced as under:-

          “8.     In view of the aforesaid findings and discussions, it is observed that opposite party shall pay the I.D.V of vehicle i.e. Rs.4,20,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. November 07^th, 2013 till its actual realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.3000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant maximum within one month from the date of completion of formalities by the complainant e.g. Form No.26, 28, 29, 30, 35, Original RC, Subrogation Letter, Indemnity Bond and Affidavit of Transferee etc to the opposite party failing which the opposite party shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum on the awarded amount from the date of decision.  Complaint is allowed accordingly.”

2.      Complainant got his vehicle bearing No.HR-16G-8919 insured with the Insurance Company for the period February 27^th, 2011 to February 26^th, 2012. On January 11^th, 2012 the nephew of the complainant took the vehicle to village Indergarh, Tehsil Gohana and parked in the plot of his friend.  Next day, the vehicle was found to be stolen.  First Information Report No.18 dated January 12^th, 2012 under Section 379 of IPC was registered with Police Station Gohana City, District Sonepat.  The Insurance Company was also informed.  The claim submitted by the complainant was not settled by the Insurance Company.  Hence, he filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Forum.

3.      The Insurance Company, in its written version, denied the averments of the complaint and pleaded that the complainant had already sold the vehicle to one Sunil Kumar son of Chhater Singh about four years ago, that is, much before the date of theft.  Thus, the complainant was not entitled to the benefits of insurance.

4.      This Commission does not concur with the submissions raised by learned counsel for the Insurance Company. The Investigator in his report merely said that the vehicle had been sold but it had nowhere mentioned about the receipt of payment. There was no proof of receipt of payment.  The Investigator did not verify from the complainant regarding the proof of payment.  It is not in dispute that the vehicle was stolen during the subsistence of the policy.  First Information Report was lodged on the same day. The Insurance Company was also intimated on the same day. The Insurance Company failed to produce any evidence that Sunil Kumar paid any amount to the complainant in lieu of purchase of vehicle.  Denying indemnification on mere assumption and presumption cannot be sustained in law.  When the registration certificate and insurance policy still existed in the name of the complainant, the Insurance Company was liable to indemnify the complainant with respect to the theft of insured vehicle and cannot escape from its liability. In National Insurance Company Limited Versus Ram Chandra Dhobi, III (2008), CPJ, 287, it has been held that since registration certificate and insurance policy were in the name of transferee/complainant, he was entitled to the benefits of insurance.  The Insurance Company cannot deny to indemnify the complainant with respect to the loss of insured vehicle.  One needs to see the merits and good spirit of the clause, without compromising on bad claims. Thus, the impugned order passed by the District Forum is perfectly right and requires no interference. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 

5.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.

 

Announced 24.11.2016

(Urvashi Agnihotri) Member

(Nawab Singh) President

UK