Haryana

Bhiwani

CC/93/2017

Siya Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shri Ram gen. - Opp.Party(s)

Sanjay Sharma

30 Apr 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSASL COMMISSION, BHIWANI.

                                                                     Complaint Case No. : 93 of 2017

                                                                     Date of Institution    : 18.07.2017

                                                                     Date of decision:      : 30.04.2024

 

Siya Ram son of Sh. Ram Kumar R/o Ram Nagar, Kaithal Tehsil and District Kaithal.

                                                            ...Complainant. 

 

                                                    Versus.

1. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., E-8 EPIP, RIICO Industrial Area, Sitapura,Jaipur, Rajasthan302022 through its Manager.

 

2. Shriram Transport Finance/Insurance Co. Ltd. near Radha Soami Satsang Bhawan 2^nd Floor, Bhiwani, District Bhiwani.  

...Opposite parties.

 

COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Before: -       Mrs. Saroj Bala Bohra, Presiding Member.

                    Ms. Shashi Kiran Panwar, Member.

Present:        Sh. Sanjay Sharma, Advocate for complainant.

Sh. Rajender Verma, Advocate for OP No.1.

Sh. J.P. Tanwar, Advocate for OP No.2 (defence struck off).

 

                                                  ORDER

 

SAROJ BALA BOHRA, PRESIDING MEMBER:

1.                 Brief facts of this case are that complainant was owner of vehicle bearing registration number HR-46A-7212 which was insured with OP NO.1 for a period from 28.03.2015 to 27.03.2016 on paying requisite premium. It is submitted that the vehicle was stolen by someone. Upon information to police, FIR No.487 dated 29.07.2015 U/s 379 IPC was got registered at P.S. Bhiwani City but despite best efforts, the vehicle could not be traced out. OPs were also informed and complainant submitted claim by submitting all necessary documents but claim was not released. So, legal notice dated 15.03.2017 was served upon the OPs but of no avail.  Hence, the present complaint has been preferred by complainant alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs resulting into monetary loss besides mental and physical harassment. In the end, prayer has been made for issuance of directions to OPs to pay claim amount of Rs.3,36,710/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 18% per annum apart from Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment.

2.                 Upon notice, OPs appeared. OP No.1 filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua cause of action, locus standi, maintainability of complaint, jurisdiction and concealment of true facts.  On merits, it is submitted that the vehicle in question was got insured with it by complainant for an IDV of Rs.3,36,710/-. It is submitted that the complainant was using the vehicle for commercial purpose. Upon receiving intimation of theft from complainant, investigation qua theft was got conducted from Sh. Lakshya Kumar, Investigator. As per his report, letters dated 06.07.2015 and 19.08.2015 were served upon the complainant requiring some documents viz. Discharge-cum-satisfaction voucher, duly filled in claim form, certified FIR, forms No.28,29 & 30, indemnity bonds, original R.C. (if RC lost then form 26) and final report. But complainant sent only copy of FIR, perusal of which reveals that FIR was lodged after a delay of 29 days and intimation to OP company has also been given after delay of 4 days.  Further, from the investigation report & affidavit of complainant, complainant had already sold the vehicle to Mr. Sanjay son of Shankar Lal R/o Rudra Colony, Bhiwani as such, the complainant has no insurable interest in the vehicle. Subsequent purchase did not get transferred in his name and also the insurance policy.  It is submitted that Sanjay got lodged the FIR mentioning himself as owner of the vehicle purchased from complainant in Rs.3,01,000/-. So, claim was repudiated as per condition no.1 of the policy vide letter dated 05.11.2015 under intimation to complainant. As such, denied for any deficiency in service on its part, complainant not entitled to any claim and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

3.                 OP No.2 did not file written statement despite availing sufficient opportunities, as such, defence of this OP was struck of vide order dated 11.09.2020.  

4.                 Ld. counsel for complainant tendered in evidence documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-8 and closed the evidence on 18.05.2023.

5.                 Ld. Counsel for OP No.1 tendered in evidence, affidavit Ex. RW1/A of Mr. Bhanwar Govind Singh Chauhan, authorized signatory of OP company alongwith documents Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-6 and closed the evidence on 22.03.2024.

6.                 On perusing the evidence produced on record, it is observed that theft of the vehicle in question is not in dispute. Perusal of repudiation letter (Annexure R-6) reveals that complainant had no insurable interest in the vehicle in question as he had sold the vehicle to one Mr. Sanjay on 03.06.2015 i.e. prior to the theft of the vehicle. Secondly, there was delay of 4 days in intimating the OP insurance  company qua the loss to the vehicle as well as there was delay of 29 days in intimating to the police qua theft of the vehicle which occurred on 30.06.2015 which is breach of condition no.1 of the insurance policy which says notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately upon the occurrence. As per version of FIR (Annexure C-4)  got recorded on statement of Mr. Sanjay son of Shankar Lal  reveals that the vehicle in question was stolen on 30.06.2015 in the night and Sanjay had purchased the same from  the complainant in a sum of Rs.3,21,000/- on 03.06.2015.  Further perusal of FIR reveals that intimation qua loss of the vehicle was given to the police on 29.07.2015. On the point of delay in intimation, learned counsel for complainant has placed reliance on case law delivered by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.653 of 2020 titled Gurshinder Singh Vs. Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd. &Anr. decided on 24.01.2020 wherein it has been observed that ‘Delay in intimating the insurance company about occurrence of theft no ground to deny claim.’

7.                 The another ground for repudiation of the claim of complainant is that complainant had no insurable interest in the vehicle on the date of theft. To substantiate his case, Ld. counsel for OP No.1 has placed reliance on case law delivered by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, in R.P. No.3517 of 2017 titled Deepak Kumar Vs. New India Insurance Co. Ltd. and ors. decided on 01.02.2018 wherein it is held that ‘Transferee did not care to get the registration certificate transferred in his name and he did not bother to write to the insurance company for changing the name of the insured-Held-As per the provisions of the GR-17, India Motor Tariff, it is clear that transferee had to apply for change of insurance within 14 days of transfer-The complainant does not have any insurance interest in the vehicle.’  The counsel has also placed reliance on case law titled Randhir Jain Vs. Oriental Insurance Company, Revision Petition No.3474 of 2013 decided on 27.10.2017 by Hon’ble NCDRC.  Ld. counsel for complainant to rebut the such contentions of OP has placed reliance on case law delivered by Hon’ble High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam titled Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Annamma Raju @ Bincy, MACA No.2585 of 2016 & MACA No.2554 of 2017 decided on 27.10.2022.  We have gone through this judgment and have found that  ‘requirement to intimate transfer of vehicle to insurance company under section 157(2) of M.V. Act only directory.’  Thus, we have come to conclusion that the Op insurance company has wrongly denied claim to complainant on this ground also.

8.                 In totality of the facts & circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the OP No.1 insurance company wrongly and illegally repudiated the claim of complainant. Perusal of Surveyor’s report (Annexure R-3) reveals that complainant, at the time of theft, was owner of the vehicle in question. This report further reveals that intimation to the OP insurance company was given by complainant on 01.07.2015 just next day of the theft. Perusal of insurance policy Annexure R-1 reveals that IDV of the vehicle was for Rs.3,36,710/-. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to get IDV of the vehicle.  Accordingly the complaint is allowed and OPs No.1 is directed to comply with the following directions within 40 days from the communication of this order:-

(i)       To pay a sum of Rs.3,36,710/- (Rs. Three lac thirty six thousand seven hundred & ten) as IDV of the vehicle in question, to the complainant alongwith simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of complaint  till its realization subject to execution of letter of Subrogation in favour of OP Company and furnishing of affidavit & all other relevant documents qua transfer of vehicle in question in favour of OP Insurance Company by the complainant within 15 days from the date of communication of this order.

(ii)      Also to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand) on account of harassment  caused to the complainant at the hands of Ops.

(iii)     Also to pay a sum of Rs.5500/- (Rs. Five thousand five hundred) on account of litigation expenses.

                    In case of default, all the aforementioned awarded amounts shall attract simple interest @ 12% per annum for the period of default. 

                    If this order is not complied with, then the complainant shall be entitled to the execution petition under section 71 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and in that eventuality, the opposite party may also be liable for prosecution under Section 72 of the said Act which envisages punishment of imprisonment, which may extend to three years or fine upto rupees one lac or with both.  Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance. 

Announced.

Dated:30.04.2024.