Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/198/2016

Pradip Kumar Aggarwal - Complainant(s)

Versus

SBI General Insurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Parminder Singh Adv.

17 Feb 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	198 of 2016
Date  of  Institution	:	18.3.2016
Date   of   Decision	:	17.2.2017

 

 

 

 

 

Pradip Kumar Aggarwal S/o Sh. Madan Aggarwal r/o H. No.38, Manauli House, Ambala City, Ambala (Haryana)

                …..Complainant

Versus

 

 

SBI General Insurance Company Ltd. SCO 457-458 (First and second), Sector 35C, Chandigarh through Manager.

 

….. Opposite Party

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN                 PRESIDENT

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

         SH. RAVINDER SINGH             MEMBER

 

 

 

For complainant(s)      :     Sh. Parminder Singh, Adv.

 

For OP                  :     Sh. Simrandeep Singh, Adv.

 

                   

 

 

RAVINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

 

 

     Succinctly, the complainant purchased private car package policy from OP for his vehicle Toyota Corolla Altis on 6.11.2014 valid from 12.11.2014 to 11.11.2015 by paying a premium of Rs.36,115/-. The IDV of the vehicle was Rs.9,18,458/-. Unfortunately, the vehicle in question met with an accident on 5.11.2015 near Sugar Mill Nawanshaher when one Mr. Lakhwinder Singh was driving the same. Thereafter the vehicle was taken to authorized service  centre at Nawanshaher by Lakhwinder Singh. The OP company was also informed regarding the incident.  The complainant submitted the estimate and claim documents with the OP for the settlement of his claim. The complainant paid the final bill of Rs.4,97,015 from his own account.  Thereafter, the OP appointed a surveyor. It is pleaded that on the advice of the surveyor the complainant gave statement to the effect that the vehicle has been sold to some other person and for which the complainant should not be held liable for any consequences whatsoever.  Though in actual the said vehicle was never sold. The complainant also submitted all the requisite documents with the OP.  But to the utter shock of the complainant the OP repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that the vehicle stands sold to one Sh. Sukhwinder Singh six month back as such there is no insurable interest of the complainant. It is vehemently denied by the complainant that he ever sold the vehicle to one Sukhwinder. It is pleaded that the complainant does not know such Sukhwinder Singh and alleged that the OP in order to frustrate his genuine claim created the name of Sukhwinder Singh. It is further pleaded that the register certificate and insurance policy is still in the name of the complainant as such the OP wrongly denied the genuine claim of the complainant.  Alleging the said act of OPs as deficiency in service, this complaint has been filed.

 

2.     Opposite Party in its reply while admitting the factual aspect of the case stated that the complainant had no insurable interest in the vehicle in question  as he had sold  the same to some dealer at Mohali  duly mentioned in his statement Annexure R1.  The said dealer further  sold the vehicle to one Lakhwinder Singh and the RC as also insurance  of the vehicle was not transferred in the name of Lakhwinder Singh. It is pleaded that Lakhwinder Singh also made statement vide Annexure R-3 to the effect that he had purchased the vehicle from some dealer of Mohali and he has yet to apply for the NOC. Thus, the complainant as well as Lakhwinder Singh had no insurable interest in the vehicle in question and as such the OP has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant. Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
3.     The Complainant also filed rejoinder thereby reiterating the averments as made in complaint and controverting that of the Opposite Party made in the reply.
4.     Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
5.     We have heard the ld. Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.
6.     The complainant Sh. Pradip Kumar Aggarwal is the registered owner of Toyota car Crolla Altis having registration No.HR35H 0034 as per Certificate of Registration Annexure C-1 issued by Registering Authority Government of Haryana, which is valid upto 11.11.2027. The certificate of Insurance Annexure C-2 for the insurance of the car  having registration No.HR35H 0034  is also in the name of the complainant valid from 12.11.2014 to 11.11.2015. The car in question damaged in an accident on 5.11.2015 at Nawanshahar, which was repaired at the cost of Rs.4,97,015/-, which was paid by the complainant himself vide Cheque Annexure C-4 bearing NO.723529 dated 12.2.2016.

 

7.     From the perusal of above documents, it is obvious that the complainant was the owner of the car in question bearing registration No.HR35H 0034 at the time of accident i.e. on 5.11.2015. The name of Sukhwinder Singh as owner of the car in question on 5.11.2015 as reported by the OP in its repudiation letter dated 4.1.2016 (Annexure
   C-5) is hypothetical. The documents referred by the OP to substantiate its claim regarding the ownership  of Sukhwinder Singh cannot override the proved facts which have been supported by Registration Certificate and Insurance Policy and payment of amount of Rs.4,97,015/-  for repair of the car by the complainant himself.

 

 

8.     Keeping in view the above facts, it is proved that the complainant was owner of the car in question on 5.11.2015 when it met with an accident. Thus, the complainant entitled to receive the insurance claim from the OP with reference to policy Annexure C-6 issued by it. Accordingly, the complaint is allowed in the following manner:-

 

             a]  The OP shall pay Rs.4,97,015/-;    to the     complainant towards his   claim.

 

b]  The OP shall also pay Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.

 

         The above said order shall be complied with by the Opposite  Party within 30 days of its receipt, failing which it shall be liable to pay interest on the above awarded amount at (a) at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of claim till it is paid, besides paying litigation expenses.

 

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

17.2.2017

                                                                                       Sd/-

 (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER