Jharkhand

Bokaro

CC/116/2019

Ritesh Kumar Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Annu Mishra

05 Jan 2023

ORDER

          District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bokaro

Date of Filing-05-07-2019

Date of final hearing-05-01-2023

 Date of Order-05-01-2023

Case No. 116/2019

1. Ritesh Kumar Singh S/o Dev Kumar Singh

          R/o Plot No. 385, Co-operative Colony,

          District Bokaro Jharkhand

Subsequently Added 2. Sunita Devi W/o Sri Dilip Kumar

R/o Village- Behra, P.S.- Behra, District- Bhojpur

Arah, Bihar

Vs.

            The Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

           CBO1, Bokaro, B-1, Second Floor, City Centre,

           Sector-4, Bokaro, Jharkhand

                             Present:-

                             Shri Jai Prakash Narayan Pandey, President

                   Smt. Baby Kumari, Member

 

PER- J.P.N Pandey, President

-Judgment-

1. Complainants have filed this case with prayer for direction to O.P. for payment of Rs. 8,84,000/- with interest on account of theft of the insured vehicle and to pay Rs. 20,000/-  as compensation and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation cost.
2. Complainant’s case in brief is that truck bearing registration No. UP- 65-AT 7431 has been registered in the name of complainant Ritesh Kumar Singh to which he agreed to sale on 08.09.2017 to complainant No.2 and received Rs. 3,50,000/- through cheque but transfer of registration of the vehicle and insurance paper was not done, however, on 16.10.2017 said truck was stolen away by someone from Petrol pump. Further case is that in this regard Dugdha P.S. Case No. 45/2017/GR 32/2017 was registered  which is pending before the Court of J.M. 1^st Class, Bermo at Tenughat, Bokaro.  Matter was reported to the O.P. Insurance Co. on 16.10.2017 vide claim No. 2700/3/2019/030151 thereafter, surveyor was deputed by O.P. who prepared report. Further case is that O.P. has not settled the claim of insured amount of Rs. 8,84,000/- inspite of repeated approach to local branch, hence legal notice was served having no impact, thereafter, this case has been filed with above mentioned prayer.
3.  O.P. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. appeared and has filed W.S. mentioning therein that complaint is not disclosing cause of action which is time barred and complainant is not the consumer. Further case is that concerned vehicle was insured with this O.P. and both parties are duly duty bound with the terms and condition of the policy. Further reply is that said vehicle was neither physically owned or possessed by the complainant at the time of loss so para 2 of the complaint petition is denied. Para 3 & 4 are admitted. Para 6 & 7 not replied. Intimation regarding theft of the vehicle was not given on 16.10.2017 rather it was given on 30.10.2017 i.e. after 17 days of theft. Further reply is that legal notice was received and duly replied by the O.P. and there is no deficiency in service on the part of this O.P. and claim was repudiated due to misconduct and negligence of the complainant and complainant is not entitled to get any relief. Further reply is that complainant had lost its insurable interest of the vehicle since the day of sale on 08.09.2017 and vehicle was in possession of new owner and it was being used for commercial purpose which was kept without any security on the highway near Madhuri Fules at Hirak Road Dugda in a negligent manner. Complainant has not done paper work in the name of transferee hence she is stranger to the contract of insurance hence case is liable to be dismissed.
4.  In light of above pleadings of the parties following points are to be decided by this Commission:-

1. Whether complainants are entitled to get relief as prayed ?
2. Whether vehicle concerned was insured on 16.10.2017 or not?

5. To prove its case complainant has produced photo copy of Insurance Policy related to the truck bearing Registration No. UP-65-AT-7431 which shows that insured declared value of the truck was Rs. 8,84,848/- and said policy was valid from 02.08.2017 to 01.08.2018 (Annxure-1). Annexure-2 is the photo copy of legal notice served on O.P. Insurance Co. Photo copy of the Certificate of Registration of the vehicle UP-65-AT-7431 has also been filed which shows that vehicle concerned is registered in the name of  complainant No.1 Ritesh Kumar Singh. In this way from careful perusal of the registration paper and insurance paper of the vehicle concerned it is disclosing the fact that on the day of occurrence the vehicle concerned was in the name of complainant No.1 Ritesh Kumar Singh and it was insured with O.P. and policy was in the name of complainant No.1.

6. On the other hand O.P. Insurance Co. has filed photo copy of the intimation letter dt. 30.10.2017, 31.10.2017 (Annexure-A), photo copy of reply of legal notice replied by the O.P. to the complainant (Annexure-D) and policy paper terms and conditions (Annexure-C).

7. On careful perusal of the pleadings of the parties as well as papers produced by the parties it is apparent that the fact related to insurance policy of the vehicle concerned is admitted fact of both the parties. There is no denial regarding the fact  that on the day of occurrence the vehicle concerned was registered in the name of complainant No.1. It is admitted fact that on the day of occurrence Certificate of Registration and Insurance Policy was in the name of the complainant No.1. Fact related to commission of theft of the vehicle concerned in the night between 15-16.10.2017 is also not in dispute. At para 8 of the complaint petition it is mentioned that the complainant has given intimation regarding theft of the vehicle concerned to the O.P. (Insurance Co.) on 16.10.2017 vide claim No. 2700/3/2019/030151 thereafter, O.P. Insurance Co. deputed a Surveyor who prepared a report regarding theft of vehicle and assured that his claim will be settled soon. This fact has been replied by the O.P. vide para 17 of the W.S. in which except regarding late intimation of the claim there is no any specific reply on the claim Number , deputation of surveyor etc. In this way on this aspect O.P. has tried to conceal something.

8. The Learned Counsel for the O.P. has placed reliance on the principles laid down by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi reported in [2014] C.J. 416(N.C.), [2013] C.J. 683 (N.C.), [2015] C.J. 72 (N.C.), [2013] C.J. 878 (N.C.) and [2022] C.J. 44 (N.C.). It is apparent from the facts and circumstance of this case that the facts and circumstance of above noted cases are different from the facts and circumstance of present case. There is no evidence from the O.P. to prove that the complainant was negligent in keeping the truck at the place from where it was stolen away.

9. It is settled principles of law that the true owner of the vehicle is the person in whose name vehicle concerned has been registered and till the transfer of the name of the registered owner it will be deemed that he is the real owner of the vehicle concerned and in case of any eventuality the registered owner will face all legal consequence and non else. Since on the day of occurrence of theft complainant No.1 Ritesh Kumar Singh was the registered owner of the vehicle concerned and insurance policy was also in his name hence for all practical  as well as legal purposes complainant No.1 will be treated as lawful owner of the vehicle concerned. It is not the case that insurance cover of the vehicle was in the name of other or on the day of occurrence vehicle was not covering with the insurance policy. Therefore, we are of the view that insurance company cannot escape from its liability related to insurance coverage of vehicle concerned. Accordingly both points are being decided in favour of the complainant.

10. Accordingly prayer of the complainant is being allowed in the following manner:-

 O.P. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. is directed to pay Rs. 8,84,000/- to the complainant No. 1 Ritesh Kumar Singh within 45 days from receipt/production  of the copy of this Judgment, failing which this O.P. will pay interest @ 10% per annum to the said complainant No.1 from 05.07.2019 (the date on which complaint was filed) and also to pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation on account of various type of harassment and also to pay Rs. 10,000/- as litigation cost to the complainant No.1 within above mentioned period.

 (J.P.N. Pandey)

                                                                                      President

                                                                                               

 

 

                                                                               (Baby Kumari)

•