Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.

Consumer Complaint No. 477

Instituted on:  16.08.2021

Decided on:  08.11.2024

Satish Kumar (age 53 years) son of Hukum Chand, resident of village Jondhi Tehsil and District Jhajjar.

                                                                                      ….Complainant

Vs

1. The Manager, Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. E-5/18, First floor, Bitten Market, Arera Colony, Bhopal (M.P.) State code-23 PIN-462016, GSTIN-23AAACU8917FIZE

2. Regional/Zonal Manager, Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. Block-B, Ground Floor, Plot no.52, Sector-44, Gurugram (Haryana) 1220221. Through its Manager.

……Opposite Parties

COMPLAINT UNDER CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT.

BEFORE: SH. NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.

                   DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.

                   DR. VIJDENER SINGH, MEMBER.

Present:       Sh. Jai Bhagwan, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh. Puneet Chahal, Advocate for the opposite parties.

                                      ORDER

SH. NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:

1.                Brief facts of the present complaint, as per the complainant, are thathe is a registered owner a vehicle Mercedes Car bearing no.HR-02-AS-6334, duly insured with opposite parties vide policy no.2371/62125453/00/000 and valid from 09/11/2020 to 08/11/2021. On 06.01.2021, the nephew of complainant namely Dheeraj Malik was driving the said vehicle and was going to Sampla. At about 10.00 PM, near the Railway Bridge of Village Ismila, a tractor-trolley suddenly came in front of his car and to avoid hitting the same, he applied brakes and resultantly the car struck in cement pillar and left portion of the car was completely damaged.The car was brought to T & T Motors Pvt. Ltd. Gurgaon by hiring a crane whereestimated expenditure of loss was assessed to Rs.41,57,964/- on 08.01.2021. The investigator/surveyor of the opposite party visited the house of complainant and got handwritten papers by misguiding the complainant and playing a fraud, in which it was written that complainant has sold his car to Dheeraj Malik and assured him that the claim would be given soon to Dheeraj Malik. The said surveyor submitted his report and the documents with the insurance company but the insurance company repudiated the claim on 03.03.2021 on the grounds that in the RC and the insurance policy, owner is complainant but the claim was submitted by Dheeraj Malik in his name. Thereafter, complainant moved a complaint against said Surveyor Sh. Anil Malik on CM Window at Jhajjar which was sent to SHO concerned and the same is still pending. This act and conduct on the part of investigator Sh. Anil Malik amounts to fraud and deficiency in service.Hence this complaint and it has been prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to make the payment of loss to the vehicle no. HR-02AS-6334 of the complainant, to pay Rs.10,000/- for illegal harassment, mental agony and costs etc., besides any other relief to which this Commission may found deem fit and proper.

2.                Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed theirwritten statement submitting therein that the opposite party had appointed an IRDA accredited Surveyor/Investigator to investigate the spot and to assess the nature and amount of loss pertaining to the incident. Thereafter, on perusal of claim documents submitted by insured alongwith the survey report, the opposite party had observed that:- “At the material time of accident of the car, the Registration Certificate and Insurance policy of the captioned vehicle was in the name of Mr. Satish Kumar, However, as per the written statement by complainant, vehicle has been sold to Mr. Dheeraj Malik while it has been found that registration certificate and insurance policy was not transferred in the name till date. The insurance certificate and vehicle Registration Certificate was not transferred after sale of the vehicle and the same continuous to be in the name of Mr. Satish Kumar concluding that, at the material time of accident Mr. Dheeraj Malik was not having the insurable interest in the vehicle”. Whereas as per All India Motor Tariff formulated by IRDA, there should exist insurable interest at the time of taking policy as well as at the time of loss. Hence the claim was repudiated by the opposite party an intimation of the same was given to the complainant vide its letter dated 03.03.2021. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs. 

3.                 Learned counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-12 and closed his evidence on 11.10.2022. On the other had learned counsel for opposite party tendered in his evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-6 and closed the same on dated 22.12.2022.

4.                 We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material aspects of the case very carefully.

5.                In the present case, claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the insurance company vide its letter dated 03.03.2021 and the same is placed on record as Ex.C8. The claim has been repudiated on the ground that at the time of accident, the registration certificate and insurance policy of the vehicle was in the name of complainant, whereas as per written statement given by the complainant, the vehicle has been sold to Mr. Dheeraj Malik. To prove this fact the insurance company has placed on record  photocopies of statements of complainant Satish Kumar as Ex.R4 & Ex.R5.  We have minutely perused the written statement and documents placed on record by the insurance company. The respondent officials submitted in the written statement and affidavit that : “The insurance certificate and vehicle registration certificate was not transferred after the sale of vehicle and the same continuous  to be in the name of Satish Kumar. At the time of accident, Mr. Dheeraj was no insurable interest in the vehicle in question.” After perusal of above mentioned letter, it reveals that the claim filed by Dheeraj has been repudiated by the insurance company on the ground that Dheeraj Malik was no insurable interest in the vehicle in question. In fact, Satish Kumar/complainant filed the present complaint before this Commission and as per documents i.e. registration certificate Ex.C2 and insurance policy Ex.C3, Satish Kumar(complainant) is registered owner of the vehicle in question. In this regard we have placed reliance upon the law of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in II(2014)ACC268(SC) titled as Mallamma(dead) by LRs Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors..  and 2020AIR(Civil)772 titled as Surendra Kumar Bhilawe Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. whereby Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that: “ As per Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, Owner means a person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered”.  Hence in view of the aforesaid law which are fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case, it is observed that the complainant was the registered owner of the vehicle on the date of accident. Hence, opposite party is liable to pay the claim amount to the complainant. The opposite party has not placed on record any survey report for assessment of loss. However, as per policy schedule placed on record as Ex.C3, the IDV of the vehicle is Rs.12 lac and the estimated cost of repair placed on record by the complainant as Ex.C6 is Rs.4157964/- i.e. more than the IDV. Hence the vehicle comes under the category of total loss. As such, complainant is entitled for IDV of vehicle after deducting the salvage value, which we have assessed as Rs.2 lac. Hence opposite party is liable to pay the amount of Rs.1000000/-(Rs.1200000/- less Rs.200000/-).

6.                In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite parties to pay the amount of Rs.1000000/-(Rupees ten lacs only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 16.08.2021 till its realisation and also to pay a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five  thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five  thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant.  Order shall be complied within one month from the date of decision. However complainant is directed to send a letter to RTO for cancellation of R.C within 15 days.  Complainant is further directed not to use the vehicle in any manner and not to ply the same on road.

7.                Application(s) pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.

8.                Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

08.11.2024.

                                                          ................................................

                                                          Nagender Singh Kadian, President

                                                          ………………………………..

                                                          Tripti Pannu, Member.

                                                                                                ……………………………….

                                                          Vijender Singh, Member