Haryana

Gurgaon

CC/278/2009

1. Bhupender - Complainant(s)

Versus

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

04 Feb 2015

ORDER

 

DISTRICT   CONSUMER   DISPUTES   REDRESSAL FORUM,  GURGAON-122001.

                                                                                                                                        Consumer Complaint No.278 of 2009                                                                                                                                                          Date of Institution: 06.04.2009                                                                                                                                                                 Date of Decision: 04.02.2015

1. Bhupender s/o Sh. Rattan Singh, R/o Village Nawada,  District Gurgaon, Haryana.

 

2. Hari Kishan s/o Sh. Raj Kumar R/o Village Nawada,  District Gurgaon, Haryana.

                                                                                        ……Complainants.

 

                                                Versus

 

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd, Gurdwara Road, Opp. Kamla Nehru Park, Gurgaon, Haryana through its Manager.

 

                                                                                       ….Opposite party.

                                               

Complaint under Sections 12 & 14 of Consumer Protection Act,1986                                                                 

 

BEFORE:     SH.RAGHVINDER SINGH BAHMANI, PRESIDENT.

                     SMT JYOTI SIWACH, MEMBER.

 

Present:        Sh.Arun Raghav, Adv for the complainant.

                    Sh.V.K.Bhardwaj, Adv for the OP.

 

ORDER       R.S.BAHMANI, PRESIDENT.    

 

            The complainants alleged  that complainant No.1 Bhupender s/o Sh. Rattan Singh  was allegedly owner of Maruti 800 Car No.HR-26-K 4280 and the vehicle was transferred in the name of Hari Kishan s/o Sh. Raj Kumar, cousin of complainant No.1 to complainant No.2 in June, 2006 and produced Registration Certificate (C-1 which shows Regd.No.HR-26-K-4280 in the name of Hari Kishan S/o Sh. Raj Kumar , Village Nawada Fatehpur, District Gurgaon which is dated 18.09.2006 issued by Registering Authority, Gurgaon). It is further alleged that the vehicle was got insured with the OP vide Policy No.354101/31/05/01/00013883 for the period 27.01.2006 to 26.01.2007 with IDV of Rs.80,000/- and produced Certificate of Insurance of Private (C-2 )(which however, shows that it was issued in the name of insured Bhupender Singh). It is further alleged that both the complainants went to the insurer to get the name of complainant No.2 transferee incorporated in the Insurance Policy but they refused to get it done simply on the plea that as the transfer is between cousin and it is not required to be incorporated in the Policy and to wait for the renewal of the Insurance Policy.  However, the vehicle met with an accident and was damaged on 14.08.2006. It was taken to authorized workshop of the Maruti Udyog Ltd i.e. Apra Auto Pvt. Ltd, Gurgaon for repair. On seeing   in the name of complainant No.1 the insured informed the Insurance Company. A surveyor was appointed who has inspected and checked the vehicle and prepared his report for payment. The workshop accordingly conducted repair work of the damaged vehicle. The Bill, however, was issued in the name of complainant No.1, the insured. The cost of repair was paid to the repairer as per assessment of Surveyor to the tune of Rs.49,000/-. The copy of Invoice No.002958 dated 02.11.2006, Job No.0005281 of Vehicle No.HR-26-K-4280 in the name of Bhupender Pal Singh is (C-3), however, which is for a total sum of Rs.48,288/-. Another Cash Memo of Chawla  Motors, Delhi Road, Gurgaon for repair is  for Rs.618/- (C-4). The complainant asked the OP for payment of the Bill of Rs.49,000/- but in vain. Thus, the OP is deficient in providing services to the complainant. He has also claimed compensation of Rs.25,000/- for harassment and mental agony. The complaint is supported with an affidavit and the documents referred above.

2                 OP-Insurance Company in its written reply has taken the objection that there is no privity of contract between the complainant No.1 and the answering OP as he has no insurable interest in the vehicle in question at the time of accident and thus, they are not liable to satisfy his claim. Infact, the vehicle in dispute has been got insured by Hari Kishan but he is not registered owner of the vehicle and  complainant No.1 has not taken any step to transfer the vehicle in favour of complainant No.1 the insured which he was bound to transfer under the provisions of law. The complainants are barred to file the present complaint by their acts and conduct. They have also not come to the Forum with clean hands and suppressed the true and material facts from this Forum. They have no cause of action or locus standi to file the present complaint. The liability of the OP is subject to terms and conditions of the Policy. The name of the registered owner differs as per Registration Certificate, Claim Form and insurance particulars from the name of insured in the policy. Therefore, there is violation of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy and thus, they have repudiated the claim of the complainant vide their Letter bearing Ref. No.31/06/462 dated 06.03.2007 (OP-1). The claim form of both the complainant is dated 12.08.2008 (OP-2). The OP has also produced the copy of FIR No.116 dated 15.08.2006 u/s 279/337/427 IPC lodged by Dharampal (OP-3). They have also sent letter to the complainant dated 12.02.2007 regarding difference in the name in the policy of the OP and thus, they have rightly repudiated his claim due to violation of terms and conditions of the Policy. It is further alleged that even the complainants failed to inform the answering OP immediately regarding accident and thus, has violated the terms and conditions of the Policy being violative of Section 134 (C ) of Motor Vehicle Act. Thus, the complaint is false, frivolous and liable to be dismissed. The written reply is supported with the affidavit of  Shri P.K.Sharma, Deputy Manager of OP besides producing the documents referred above.

3                 We have heard the parties and appraised the material on record carefully. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances discussed above and after going through the documents produced on record by the parties we are of the considered opinion that as per the case of the complainant,  Bhupender  son of Sh. RattanSingh was  registered owner of Maruti 800 bearing Regd. No.HR-26-K-4280. However, he has got it transferred in the name of Hari Kishan complainant No.2 allegedly in June, 2006 and the Registration Certificate is (C-1) which is in the name of Hari Kishan S/o Sh. Raj Kumar showing vehicle in lhis name as on 18.09.2006  which does not disclose that the vehicle is being transferred by Sh. Bhupender s/o Sh. Rattan Singh  in his name  as even the column of previous owner name and address is lying vacant. However, Policy started from the previous date of vehicle bearing Policy No.354101/31/05/01/00013883 for the period 27.01.2006 to 26.01.2007 with IDV of Rs.80,000/- which is in the name of insured Bhupender Singh, which means the vehicle was previously in the name of Bhupender Singh that is why policy was issued in his name. However, the transferee Hari Kishan as per RC failed to get his name incorporated from the Insurance company on becoming owner of the vehicle on 18.09.2006  vide RC (C-1) though he was required to inform and get his name incorporated under the terms and conditions of the Insurance Company from the Insurance Company. On the basis of which the Insurance Company has repudiated his claim though vehicle was got surveyed by them from their Surveyor on the basis of Insurance Policy and it was repaired by authorized dealer of the Maruti  i.e. Apra Auto (India) Pvt. Ltd in the name of Sh. Bhupender Pal Singh vide Invoice No.002958 dated 02.11.2006 for a total sum of Rs.48,288/- which the OP failed to pay or reimburse in favor of the complainant/transferee on the plea of different names in the RC and in their Insurance Policy.

However, as per latest law laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission in case titled United India Insurance Co. & Ors Vs Bhupinder Singh III(2014) CPJ 20 (NC) under similarl facts it has been held while placing reliance on Narayan Singh vs New India assurance Co. Ltd IV)2007) CPJ 289 (NC) that

 

“benefits under the Policy automatically accrue to the new owner on transfer of the vehicle.”

It was also even followed in National Insurance Co. Ltd v Subhash Chand Kataria & Ano II(2008) CPJ 324 (NC) which was followed in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd v Om Prakash Gupta & Ano I(2009) CPJ 183 (NC) while placing reliance on GR-10 issued by Tariff Advisory Committee.

Thus, the authority relied upon by the learned counsel for the OP in the written reply are not applicable to the facts of the case in view of the consistent laws laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission regarding automatic transfer of policy after transfer in RC. Hence, their repudiation of the claim filed by Hari Kishan S/o Sh. Raj Kumar whose name appeared in the RC (C-1) is not justifiable.

4                 The complainant though produced Invoice dated 02.11.2006 by which he has paid a sum of Rs.48,288/- for repair. OP as per their admission in the written reply has also got inspected and checked and damaged Car before and after its repair through their Surveyor and Loss Assessor to assess the loss of the vehicle of the complainant who has even given his report and assessed loss. It is alleged that the report has already been enclosed with the written reply though it has never been produced. However, the report of the Surveyor is to be given due weightage as held by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission as well as Hon’ble apex Court  in case Zainul Abedin & Anr. Vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors. II (2008) CPJ 173 (NC), National Insurance Co. Ltd v Nipha Exports Pvt. Ltd 2007 (1) CPR 80 (SC), Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd v Mehta Wool Store 2008  NCJ 82 (NC).

5                 Thus, the complainant No.2 Hari Kishan s/o Sh. Raj Kumar  is entitled to the loss assessed by the Surveyor appointed by the Insurance Company.  The complainant No.2 is also entitled to  compensation of Rs.10,000/- as he was made to run from pillar to post since  14.08.2006. The complainant No.2 is also entitled to interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till realization. He is also entitled to litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/-.

Compliance be made within 30 days.

Copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs.

 

Pronounced in open court.                           

Dated: 04.02.2015.

                                                                                                  President,

                                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                                                                                                              Redressal Forum, Gurgaon

                 (Jyoti Siwach)

                       Member