Haryana

Bhiwani

CC/156/2018

Anand - Complainant(s)

Versus

Tata Aig - Opp.Party(s)

Rajesh Sheoran

29 Jul 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSASL COMMISSION, BHIWANI.

                                                                   Complaint Case No. : 156 of 2018

                                                                   Date of Institution    : 13.11.2018

                                                                   Date of decision:      : 29.07.2024

 

Anand Singh son of Sh. Puran Singh R/o village Shyampur Kalan, Tehsil Badhra, District Charkhi Dadri.

                                                            ...Complainant. 

 

                                                    Versus.

1. Tata AIG Insurance Co. Ltd., 301-308, 3^rd Floor, Aggarwal Prestige Mall, Plot No.2, Road No.44, Near M2K Cinema Rani Bagha, Pitampura (News Delhi), through its Manager/authorized signatory.

 

2. Indusind Bank Ltd., branch at Opp. Vardhman Tower, Circular Road, Bhiwani through its Branch Manager/authorized person.

 

...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. Rajesh Sheoran, Advocate for complainant.

                    Sh. Rajender Verma, Advocate for OPs No. 1 & 2.

  

                                                  ORDER

 

SAROJ BALA BOHRA, PRESIDING MEMBER:

1.                 Brief facts of this case are that complainant taken comprehensive insurance for his vehicle TATA 407 bearing registration No. HR-61A-3503 from OP No.1 insurance company for a period from 21.04.2017 to 20.04.2018. The vehicle was financed with OP No.2. It is stated that on 05.02.2018, the vehicle was stolen from Bhaish Mandi, Gazipur (Delhi). FIR No.3759 dated 05.02.2018 under section 379 IPC was registered at P.S. Gazipur (East) in this regard. OP insurance company was informed, upon which, surveyor was appointed and at his instance required documents were submitted. Untraced report accepted by the Court concerned vide its order dated 07.03.2018 and copy of the same was submitted  to the OP insurance company.  But the OP insurance company denied the claim vide letter dated 11.05.2018 without any cause to do so. Legal notice dated 06.09.2018 was sent to the OP but of no avail. Hence, the present complaint has been preferred by complainant alleging deficiency in service resulting into monetary loss as well as mental and physical harassment.   In the end, prayer has been made to direct the OPs to pay the insured amount of Rs.3,06,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of theft till actual realization.  Further to pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for harassment besides litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.5500/-. Any other relief to which this Commission deems fit has also been sought.

2.                 Upon notice, Ops appeared and filed their separate written statements.  OP No.1 raised preliminary objections qua maintainability of complaint, estoppel from filing this complaint, locus standi, cause of action and suppression of material facts. On merits, it is submitted that Mehar Investigators submitted their report dated 23.03.2018 w.r.t. thief of the vehicle alongwith statement of complainant and Sh. Kashmir Singh son of Sh. Umed Singh R/o village Jeveli, Tehsil Badhara, District Bhiwani wherein mentioned that complainant had sold the vehicle in question to Sh. Kashmir Singh in Rs.3.00 lac in October 2010 and the financed amount was also paid by said Kashmir Singh but R.C. of the vehicle and insurance policy was not transferred his name. To this effect, they both have furnished their affidavits to the investigator.  As per OP, it is also came out from the report and documents annexed thereto that vehicle in question was left unattended alongwith ignition key and the other key was in the dickey of the vehicle when the vehicle was last parked by Sh. Naresh brother of Kashmir Singh which was violation of General Regulation 17 of All India Motor Tariff and Insurance Policy conditions No.4 and 8.  Thereafter, letters dated 30.04.2018 & 11.05.2018 were sent to the complainant as well as Sh. Kashmir Singh for clarification but they failed to reply the same. Further the complainant had no insurable interest in the vehicle. As such, claim of complainant was rightly repudiated by the answering OP.  In the end, denied for any deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

3.                 OP No.2 submitted its written version mentioning that a loan of Rs.4,40,000/- was sanctioned to him for purchase of the vehicle in question and it was to be repaid in 46 installments and the loan installments have already completed on 30.01.2014 and NOC in this regard was issued on such date. As such, denied any deficiency in service on its part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua it.

4.                 Ld. counsel for complainant tendered in evidence, documents Ex. C-1 to Ex. C-9 and closed the evidence on 28.08.2023.

5.                 On the other side, Ld. Counsel for OPs tendered documents Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-9 on behalf of OP No.1 and closed the evidence on 10.06.2024 whereas filed document Annexure R-1 on behalf of OP no.2 and was closed the evidence on 22.10.2019.

6.                 We have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record carefully. Ld. counsel for OPs has placed reliance on case laws delivered by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, titled Maria Selvam Vs. Manager Royal Sundaram Allaince Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. R.P. No.4759 of 2013 decided on 18.05.2016 and case titled MD. Shamsur Alam Vs.Relaince General Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., R.P. No.1796 of 2015 decided on 07.05.2016. We have carefully gone through the case laws.

7.                 At the outset, from pleadings of the parties and perusal of repudiation letter (Ex.C-4) reveal that claim to complainant was denied  as the vehicle was already sold by complainant to Kashmir Singh in July 2010.  Further registration certificate and insurance policy was not transferred in his name till date and that at the time of parking the vehicle key were left in it. Thus the OP insurance company has pleaded such act of complainant violation of General Rule:17 qua transfer: which says the transferee shall apply within fourteen days from the date of transfer in writing under recorded delivery to the insurer who has insured the vehicle, with the details of the registration of the vehicle………the date of transfer of the vehicle, the previous owner of the vehicle and number and date of insurance policy so that the insurer may make the necessary changes in his record and issue fresh certificate of insurance. As well as there was violation of Policy conditions No.4 & 8 which are with regard to safeguard of the vehicle and observance of the policy conditions.

8.                 Admittedly, at the time of theft the vehicle was registered in the name of complainant. Investigator in his report (Annexure R-1) has pointed out that the vehicle in question was sold by complainant to Sh. Kashmir Singh prior to the theft and that is why, complainant has no insurable interest in the vehicle. But since the vehicle still is in the name of complainant then he has absolute ownership over the vehicle.  Thus observance in the investigation report that as per affidavits of complainant and Sh. Kahsmir Singh vehicle has already been sold has no meaning unless and until it is transferred by any motor vehicle registering authority in the name of fresh transferee.  So, we are of the confirmed view that complainant has ownership over the vehicle. This view is also fortify from the copy of National Permit of the vehicle in question (Ex. C-7) and its verification from concerned RTA office (Ex. C-6).   

9.                 In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that on the day of theft, the vehicle was under insurance cover and despite best efforts by police, it has not been traced out and the Court concerned accepted such report of the police and we do not see any violation of any terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to get IDV of the vehicle which is Rs.3,06,000/- (Ex.C-1 insurance policy). Accordingly the complaint is allowed and OP No.1 insurance company is directed to comply with the following directions within 40 days from the communication of this order:-

(i)       To pay a sum of Rs.3,06,000/- (Rs. Three lacs six thousand)) 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 insurance company and furnishing of affidavit & all other relevant documents qua transfer of vehicle in question in its favour by the complainant within 15 days from the date of communication of this order.

(ii)      And to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand) on account of compensation for harassment.

(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 No.1 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. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance. 

Announced.

Dated:29.07.2024.