Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/885/2012

Furkan S/o Mehar Deen - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shri Ram General Insurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Rahul Singla

10 Aug 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA   NAGAR

                                                               Complaint No. 885 of  2012.

                                                               Date of institution: 16.08.2012.

                                                               Date of decision: 10.08.2017.

 

Furkan son of Sh. Mehar Deen R/o Failjpur Kalesar, Tehsil Chhachhrauli, Distt. Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                                                                                                             

                                                                                                       …Complainant.

                                  Versus

 

Shri Ram General Insurance Company Limited, Ist Floor, B5/694, Plot NO. 57/75, Thapper Colony, Oppt. Paper Mill gate work shop Road Yamuna Nagar, through its Branch Manager.

      …. Respondent.

                  

BEFORE   SH. DHARAMPAL, PRESIDENT

                  SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

                  SMT. VEENA RANI SHEOKAND, MEMBER.          

 

Present:        Sh. Rahul Singla, Advocate, counsel for complainant.   

                    Sh. A.S. Goyal, Advocate, counsel for respondent. 

 

ORDER      (DHARAMPAL PRESIDENT)

 

1.                  Complainant Furkan has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 as amended up to date. 

2.                Brief facts of the complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that the complainant is the registered owner of the tractor bearing registration No. HR71-1378 and the above said tractor was got insured from the OP vide cover note No. 821547 dated 30-11-2010 and paid an amount of Rs. 5,848/- as premium. It is submitted that on 05-12-2010, the driver of the complainant named as Rajkumar son of Sh. Nakli Ram, R/o Village Chandpur Arriyawala, P.O. Tejewala, Distt. Yamuna Nagar had gone to Poanta Sahib for his personal work and the above said tractor was stolen from “the Mirchi Dhaba” near unitech, Khizrabad. Upon which a case bearing FIR NO. 149 dated 06-12-2010 under Section 379 IPC was registered against unknown person in police station Khizrabad, District Yamuna Nagar.  The theft of the said tractor was reported to the OP and the complainant completed all legal formalities but despite completing all the legal formalities the OP after putting of the matter on pretext or the other and ultimately they have refused to listen the genuine request of the complainant and also denied to pay any compensation to the complainant. Hence, there is a great deficiency in service on the part of the OP. As such, the complainant prayed that his complaint may kindly be accepted and OP be directed to pay Rs. 4,00,000/- i.e insured amount along with interest @ 18 per annum and also to the to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- on account of cost of proceedings, mental agony, physical harassment, to the complainant.

 3.               Upon notice, OP appeared and filed his written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable, has no cause of action, complainant has got no locus-standi to file and maintain the present complaint and there is concealment of the facts. It is submitted that the tractor of the complainant was allegedly stolen on 05-12-2010 but the complainant intimated in this regard to the OP on 30-09-2011 i.e. delay of 9 months apparel, as such the complainant constitutes serious breach of condition No. 1 of the insurance policy. It is further submitted that the complainant in the FIR is Raj Kumar and he has stated that his vehicle bearing Reg. No. HR-71-1378 was lost/stolen on 05-12-2010 but the present complaint is being filed by Furkan as such it reveals out that the complainant has sold his vehicle to one Raj Kumar, though no intimation in regard to change of the ownership was ever intimated to the OP. As such, there is no insurable interest of the complainant as the vehicle in question was not used by the complainant but the same was used by Raj Kumar, as such policy was to be transferred in the name of Raj Kumar if there was change of ownership. It is further submitted that the vehicle was left unattended/unlocked which resulted into lost of the vehicle which is also violation of the condition No. 4 of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. This fact comes to the knowledge of the OP through the intimation papers of the complainant, as such the complainant has breached the warranty “claim for theft of vehicle not payable if theft not reported to the company immediately of its occurrence”. It is further submitted that the competent authority of the OP has processed the claim and comes to the conclusion that the insured has violated the terms and conditions NO. 1 and 4 of the policy and the claim of the complainant is not covered under the Indian Motor Tarrif. The competent authority of the OP has taken the decision under the mandatory terms and conditions of the policy, the insurance company disown our liability and repudiated the claim and closing the case file on 31-10-2011 and sent intimation to the complainant, which was duly received by him. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.                To prove his case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence complainant’s affidavit as Annexure CW1/A and documents such as photocopy of FIR as Annexure C1, photocopy of order passed by Ld. JMIC, Sub Division, Bilaspur as Annexure C-2, photocopy of cover note as Annexure C3 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.                On the other hand, counsel for the OP Insurance Company tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Arvind Sharma, Legal Officer, Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. as Annexure RA and documents such as photocopy of terms and conditions of the policy as Annexure R-1, photocopy of letter issued by the OP to the complainant regarding incomplete information,  photocopy of repudiation letter dated 31-10-2011 as Annexure R-3 and photocopy of certificate-cum-policy schedule as Annexure R-4 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP. 

6.                We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely & carefully. 

7.                 In view of submissions made by the parties, the moot point is to be decided, whether the complainant is the owner of the vehicle in question at the time of incident or not?

                   The OP vide his written statement in para No. 7 taken the specific objection that in the FIR Raj Kumar has mentioned that his vehicle bearing No. HR-71-1378 was stolen on 05-12-2010 but the present complaint is being filed by the complainant Furkan as such it reveals out that the complainant has sold his vehicle to one Raj Kumar, though no intimation in regard to change of the ownership was ever intimated to the OP. As such there is no insurable interest of the complainant upon the vehicle.

                   The complainant has failed to file any rejoinder to rebut the stand taken by the OP in its written statement. We have perused the FIR Annexure C-1 wherein it has been mentioned that on 05-12-2010 at about 10.00 PM Rajkumar son of Sh. Nakli Ram, caste Gadaria, R/o Village Chandpur, P. S. Khijrabad parked his tractor bearing registration No. HR -71-1378 make Swaraj 744 at Mirchi Dhaba near Unitech and went to take meal in the Dhaba and slept there for some time. On 06-12-2010 at about 3:30 AM he found that his tractor was not there.

8.                During the arguments, the complainant was directed to show the registration certificate of the said tractor but he failed to place the same on record. We have also perused the case file but the complainant has not produced any photocopy of the RC along with the complaint at the time of filing of complaint. He has only placed on file the photocopy of insurance cover note which was in the name of the complainant which was valid from 30-11-2010 to 29-11-2011.

                   From the above, it is clear that the complainant failed to place on file any proof/evidence to prove that he has not sold the tractor in question to Raj Kumar and he was the owner of the said tractor at the time of theft.

9.                In view of the above said discussion, we are of the considered view that the complainant has failed to prove the ownership of the said tractor at the time of theft. As such there is no insurable interest of the complainant upon the vehicle in question.

                   In view of the above, the present complainant deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the complaint is, hereby, dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

 Announced in open court. 10.08.2017

 

 

                                                     ( DHARAMPAL)

                                                     PRESIDENT

                                                     D.C.D.R.F.YAMUNA NAGAR

                                                     AT JAGADHRI

 

(VEENA RANI SHEOKAND)    (S.C.SHARMA)

 MEMBER                                    MEMBER

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

( DHARAMPAL)

                                                            PRESIDENT

                                                            D.C.D.R.F.YAMUNA NAGAR

                                                           AT JAGADHRI