DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, CAMP COURT, AT AMRITSAR, PUNJAB.

Complaint Case No : RBT/CC/2018/352

Date of Institution   : 15.05.2018/29.11.2021

Date of Decision     : 08.09.2022

 

Sh. Sarabjeet Singh Dhillon son of Charan Singh Dhillon resident of House No. 534, Akalsr Colony, Dera Baba Darshan Singh Ji, Ghantur Chheharta, Amritsar through its attorney Charan Singh Dhillon resident of H.No. 534, Akalsar Colony, Dera Baba Darshan Singh Ji, Ghantur, Chheharta, Amritsar.    

                 …Complainant Versus

Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd., through its Manager/Regional Manager/Principal Officer, E-8, EPIP RICO, Industrial Area Sita Pur, Jaipur 302022. 

              …Opposite Party

Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. As Amended Upto Date.

 

Present: Sh. Ajay Shanker Adv counsel for complainant.

Sh. R.P. Singh Adv counsel for opposite party.

Quorum:-

1. Sh. Ashish Kumar Grover : President

2.Sh. Navdeep Kumar Garg : Member 

(ORDER BY ASHISH KUMAR GROVER, PRESIDENT): 

 

1. The present complaint has been received by transfer from District Consumer Commission, Amritsar in compliance of the order dated 26.11.2021 of the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh. The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date) against Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred as opposite party).

2. Brief facts of the case are that earlier the complainant had filed a complaint No. 539 of 2016 on 6.10.2016 against the opposite party and two others on the allegations that originally the vehicle i.e. Car Make Toyota Innova EURO 425 GX bearing RC No. PB-09-G-6755 having model 2005 was the ownership of Maninder Singh care of Sarabjeet Singh Dhillon, which he got financed earlier from Shri Ram Transport Finance Company Ltd., but said Maninder Singh failed to make the payment of the financed amount and subsequently Shri Ram Transport Company Limited took the possession of the said vehicle as he became willful defaulter. It is further alleged that subsequently the complainant purchased the said vehicle as per the legal procedure on 2.2.2016 from Shri Ram Transport Finance Company Limited by paying the remaining payment of the said vehicle. It is alleged that the said vehicle bearing Engine No. 2KD9505671, Chassis No. KUN407024930905 was got insured from the opposite party vide policy No. 10003/31/16/125136 for sum insured value of Rs. 3.50 lacs and after purchase of policy endorsement was made in the name of complainant on 7.6.2016. Unfortunately, on 10.3.2016 the said vehicle got damaged and in this regard the opposite party was informed and as per the instructions of the opposite party the vehicle was given to their service centre Jaspal Denting & Painting at Ram Tirath Road, City Light Cinema Market, Amritsar. Thereafter, a surveyor was appointed by the opposite party to inspect the vehicle and took photographs and he made final report for loss of Rs. 1,25,000/- approximately but the opposite party passed the claim of the complainant with respect to the damaged vehicle to the tune of Rs. 65,338/- but till the date of filing earlier complaint the amount was not credited in the bank account of the complainant. In the earlier complaint the opposite party appeared and took main objection that till date the complainant has not provided the documents, therefore the claim has not yet decided, therefore it was a premature complaint. It is further alleged that the Hon'ble Forum vide its order dated 11.10.2017 decided the complaint by directing the complainant to submit the documents required by the opposite party No. 1 and to complete all other formalities with the opposite party No. 1 within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order and consequently the opposite party No. 1 shall process and settle the claim of the complainant either way, positively within further 30 days as per IRDA guidelines from the date of receipt of required documents from the complainant and the complainant was given liberty to file the fresh complaint after the final settlement of his claim if he still not satisfy with the decision of the opposite party. It is further alleged that in compliance with the order dated 11.10.2017 of this Forum, the complainant sent required documents under registered cover dated 7.11.2017 to the opposite party at their address. But the opposite party had failed to comply the order to decide the claim of the complainant within 30 days. The above said act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, the present complaint is filed for seeking the following reliefs.- 

i)To comply the order dated 11.10.2017 and paid the claim amount of the complainant.    

3. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite party appeared and filed written statement by taking preliminary objections interalia on the ground of maintainability. It is alleged that as per the direction of this Forum in the previous complaint, the complainant has not provided the documents sought, therefore, the claim has not yet decided till date, therefore it is premature complaint and is liable to be dismissed. It is further alleged that the policy stands in the name of Maninder Singh at the time of alleged occurrence, whereas the present complaint has been filed by Sarabjeet Singh Dhillon, therefore, the complainant has no locu-standi to file the present complaint and the policy was not transferred by the complainant in his name, therefore he is not entitled for any claim. It is alleged that after receiving information a surveyor was appointed who conducted his survey and as per survey report and documents it has been observed that there was delay of 7 days in intimation of claim. Moreover, the chassis No. of the vehicle as per RC is KUN40724930905, but physically it is different on the vehicle i.e. KUN407249430905, therefore the complainant was requested vide letter dated 17.5.2016 to endorse the correct chassis number on the RC and policy and submit the same to the opposite party, but the complainant till date has failed to submit the corrected RC and policy. On merits, it is submitted that the complainant did not supply the required documents to the opposite party. Moreover, it was found that there is no insurable interest between the parties, therefore the claim was not payable. All other allegations are denied and prayed for the dismissal of complaint. 

4. In order to prove the case the complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of the letter dated 6.11.2017 Ex.C-2, copy of RC Ex.C-3, copy of the previous RC Ex.C-4, copy of postal receipt Ex.C-5. 

5. To rebut the case of the complainant the opposite party tendered into evidence affidavit of Amandeep Sharma Sr. Legal Executive Ex.O.P1/A, documents Ex.O.P1 to Ex.O.P8 and closed the evidence. 

6. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents placed on record by the parties.  

7. Ld. Counsel for complainant argued that earlier the complainant had filed a complaint No. 539 of 2016 on 6.10.2016 against the opposite party and two others on the allegations that originally the vehicle i.e. Car Make Toyota Innova EURO 425 GX bearing RC No. PB-09-G-6755 having model 2005 was the ownership of Maninder Singh care of Sarabjeet Singh Dhillon, which he got financed earlier from Shri Ram Transport Finance Company Ltd., but said Maninder Singh failed to make the payment of the financed amount and subsequently Shri Ram Transport Company Limited took the possession of the said vehicle as he became willful defaulter and the complainant purchased the said vehicle as per the legal procedure on 2.2.2016 from Shri Ram Transport Finance Company Limited by paying the remaining payment of the said vehicle. It is argued that the said vehicle bearing Engine No. 2KD9505671, Chassis No. KUN407024930905 was got insured from the opposite party vide policy No. 10003/31/16/125136 for sum insured value of Rs. 3.50 lacs and after purchase of policy endorsement was made in the name of complainant on 7.6.2016. It is further argued that unfortunately on 10.3.2016 the said vehicle got damaged and in this regard the opposite party was informed and as per the instructions of the opposite party the vehicle was taken to their service centre Jaspal Denting & Painting at Ram Tirath Road, City Light Cinema Market, Amritsar and thereafter, a surveyor was appointed by the opposite party to inspect the vehicle and took photographs and he made final report for loss of Rs. 1,25,000/- approximately, but the opposite party passed the claim of the complainant with respect to the damaged vehicle to the tune of Rs. 65,338/-. It is also argued by the Ld. Counsel for complainant that till the date of filing earlier complaint the amount was not credited in the bank account of the complainant. It is further argued that the Hon'ble Forum vide its order dated 11.10.2017 decided the complaint by directing the complainant to submit the documents required by the opposite party No. 1 and to complete all other formalities with the opposite party No. 1 within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order and consequently the opposite party No. 1 shall process and settle the claim of the complainant either way, positively within further 30 days as per IRDA guidelines from the date of receipt of required documents from the complainant and the complainant was given liberty to file the fresh complaint after the final settlement of his claim if he still not satisfy with the decision of the opposite party. It is further argued that in compliance with the order dated 11.10.2017 of this Forum, the complainant sent required documents under registered cover dated 7.11.2017 to the opposite party at their address, but the opposite party had failed to comply the order to decide the claim of the complainant within 30 days. 

8. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for opposite party argued that as per the direction of this Forum in the previous complaint, the complainant has not provided the documents sought, therefore, the claim has not yet decided till date, therefore it is premature complaint and is liable to be dismissed. It is further argued that the policy stands in the name of Maninder Singh at the time of alleged occurrence, whereas the present complaint has been filed by Sarabjeet Singh Dhillon, therefore, the complainant has no locu-standi to file the present complaint and the policy was not transferred by the complainant in his name, therefore he is not entitled for any claim. It is also argued that after receiving information a surveyor was appointed who conducted his survey and as per survey report i.e. Ex. O.P6 and documents it has been observed that there was delay of 7 days in intimation of claim and the chassis No. of the vehicle as per RC is KUN40724930905, but physically it is different on the vehicle i.e. KUN407249430905, therefore the complainant was requested vide letter dated 17.5.2016 i.e. Ex.O.P3 to endorse the correct chassis number on the RC and policy and submit the same to the opposite party, but the complainant till date has failed to submit the corrected RC and policy. It is further argued that it was found that there is no insurable interest between the parties, therefore the claim was not payable.

9. In order to rebut the case of the complainant the opposite party has placed on record copy of certificate cum policy schedule Ex.O.P1, which shows the insured name as Mr. Maninder Singh. The Ex.O.P1 further shows that the name of Mr. Sarabjeet Singh Dhillon was endorsed on 7.6.2016, whereas the accident took place on 10.3.2016 and at that time the policy was not transferred by the complainant in his name. The opposite party in support of its case has placed on record report of Rohit Kapoor, Surveyor & Loss Assessor Ex.O.P6 vide which the insured name shows as Mr. Maninder Singh and the accident/loss date & time shows as 20.3.2016 06:00 PM. So, from the perusal of above said documents it is proved that on the date of loss, insured vehicle policy was in the name of Shri Maninder Singh and not in the name of Sarabjit Singh Dhillon, and he has no insurable interest in the insured vehicle at the time of accident. Moreover, the complainant has failed to place on record the repaired bill of the damaged vehicle in question to prove his case. 

10. Hence, on the date of the accident i.e. 10.3.2016, the insurance policy did not stand transferred in the name of the complainant. Further, he has also not mentioned the date on which he had informed the insurance company about the purchase of the said vehicle. Therefore, on the date of accident i.e. 10.3.2016, the complainant had no insurable interest in the said vehicle as the complainant had no insurance policy in his name to claim compensation for the damage to the vehicle and these facts have been concealed in his complaint. 

11. Ld. Counsel for opposite party has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, 2017(4) CPJ 507 in Revision Petition No. 2108 of 2017 in case titled Sunil Dattatray Gaurav Satying At Uran Islampur, Taluka Walva District-Sangil Maharahstra Vs Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., and 2 Ors. Pawar Building Vita Road, Tasgaon & Ors. 

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Sections 2(1)(g) and 21(b) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 157 Accident of insured vehicle- Insurable Interest disputed- Repudiation of claim by insurer- Complaint filed before Distt. Forum alleging deficiency in service- Complaint allowed- Appeal filed before State Commission allowed- State Commission observed that Section 157 of Motor Vehicles Act was applicable to third party risks only and hence, not applicable in the present case- Hence, present revision- On date of accident, insurance policy was not in name of complainant rather policy which was going to expire just a few days after accident, was never transferred in his name- Complainant has not made any averment anywhere that he made any attempt to get policy transferred in his name- Possession of vehicle was delivered to complainant on 14.10.2002, but still he has nowhere stated that he made attempts to have vehicle transferred in his name- Order passed by State Commission held proper- Hence, upheld- Revision Petition dismissed. 

12. Ld. Counsel for the opposite party has also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Revision Petition No. 3474 of 2013 in Appeal No. 30 of 2010 decided on 27.10.2017 in case titled Randhir Jain S/o Late Sh. Jamboo Prasad Jain R/o 78 Geeta Apartments, Geeta Colony, New Delhi-110031 Vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., New Delhi- DO 14, 80 Fie Patpargnaj Delhi-110092. 

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Sections 2(1)(g) and 21(b) Accident of insured vehicle- Transfer of ownership not intimated- Repudiation of claim by insurer- Complaint filed before Distt. Forum alleging deficiency in service- Complaint allowed- Appeal against same allowed- Hence, present revision- Appellant has himself stated in his complaint that the factum of transfer of ownership was intimated to the insurance company on 2.4.2008 at their old residence, but there was deficiency in service on the part of the insurance company, as they had not intimated the change of address to the policy holder- This contention of the petitioner/complainant is not tenable, as the insurance company is not supposed to intimate changes in their address to the policy holder- Even if the version of the complainant is believed, it is not clear whether the said intimation was within 14 days of the transfer of the vehicle to him, in the absence of specific date of transfer of the vehicle on record- Insurance policy in question was not transferred in favour of the complainant- Hence, stand taken by the insurance company that complainant had no insurable interest in the matter, is substantiated from record- Repudiation of claim held justified. 

13. Based on the discussion above, the present complaint has no merits and the same stands dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs or compensation. Copy of the order will be supplied to the parties by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar as per rules. File be sent back to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar.    

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:

       8th Day of September, 2022 

 

 

            (Ashish Kumar Grover)

            President             

 

(Navdeep Kumar Garg)

Member