Haryana

Karnal

CC/419/2010

Harish Kumar S/o Shanker Dass - Complainant(s)

Versus

The New India Assurance Company limited - Opp.Party(s)

S.S. Moonak

27 Dec 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

                                                               Complaint No.419 of 2010

                                                             Date of instt.:08.06.2010

                                                              Date of decision:27.12.2016

 

Harish Kumar son of Shri Shankar Dass, resident of House no.34, Jawahar Nagar, Bank Colony, Karnal, Tehsil and District Karnal.

 

                                                                   ……..Complainant.

                                      Vs.

The New India Assurance Company Limited, G.T. Road, Karnal through its Divisional Manager

                                                                   ………… Opposite Parties.

 

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before                   Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:-      Sh.S.S. Moonak Advocate for the complainant.

                    Sh. Sudhakar Mittal Advocate for the Opposite party.

                  

 ORDER:

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer protection Act 1986, on the averments that he purchased one car bearing Registration no.HR-05/S:4203 from Madan Mohan son of Radha Krishan resident of Karnal. The registration certificate was transferred in his name on 18.10.2007. He had also informed the opposite party regarding the transfer of the policy on 22.10.2007. The car was insured with the opposite party, vide cover note no.CHD/06/156606 valid from 16.06.2007 to 15.06.2008 for a sum of Rs.3,94,930/- and the policy was comprehensive. The car was borrowed from him by his neighbour Dinesh Kataria, who alongwith family members had gone to visit Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine etc. on 3.6.2008. The car was being driven by Suraj Parkash, while they were returning from Jammu to Amritsar. The car was hit by a  Tavera vehicle bearing registration no.PB-08/AT:1330 near Jhangir Mor on Batala Amritsar Road on account of the negligence of driver of Tavera vehicle. In the said accident all the occupants of the car including the driver sustained injuries and the driver Suraj Parkash succumbed to those injuries. The           case bearing First Information Report no.85 dated 3.6.2008 was registered in Police Station Majitha, regarding the said accident. The car was brought to Karnal after getting the same released on superdari from the Illaqua Magistrate. The matter was reported to the opposite party. The car was surveyed by the surveyor of the opposite party. He had submitted all the relevant documents, claim form etc. to the office of opposite party. He visited the office of the opposite party on several occasions, but his claim was neither settled nor repudiated. He also got surveyed his car from the private approved surveyor and General Insurance Company. His claim was not settled by the opposite party, which amounted to deficiency in service due to which he suffered mental pain and agony apart from financial loss. It has also been pleaded that the complainant met with road side accident on 3.11.2009 and suffered severe head injury and remained under constant medical treatment due to which complaint was filed after delay of six days.

                   An application for condonation of delay was filed alongwith the complaint.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite party, who put into appearance and filed written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint; that the complainant was not having insurable interest in the vehicle at the time of alleged accident, because the vehicle was owned and possessed by Madan Mohan and insurance policy was also issued in his name; that the complainant has not approached this forum with clean hands and that there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party.

                   On merits, it has been submitted that at the time of submission of the documents, the insured Madan Mohan submitted driving licence of Ranjeet Singh son of G.S.Lamba and alleged that he was driving the vehicle at the time of  alleged accident, whereas the complainant alleged that the vehicle was being driven Suraj Parkash at the time of alleged accident. Complainant or the insured never produced the copy of the driving licence of Suraj Parkash, therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground. It  has further been pleaded that Lt. Col. Ajay Ahlawat Surveyor was appointed for assessment of the loss of the vehicle, who assessed the loss as Rs.10,736/- and submitted his report dated 6.7.2007. The complainant had not filed any claim regarding loss of the vehicle with the opposite party. In this way, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The other allegations made in the complainant have not been admitted.

3.                In evidence of the complainant, his affidavit Ex.C1, documents Ex. C2 to C12  and affidavit of Arvind Koesis Ex.C12 have been tendered.

4.                On the other hand in evidence of the opposite party, affidavit of Rajeshwar Singh Divisional Manager Ex.O1, affidavit of Lt. Col. Ajay Ahlawat Surveyor and Loss Assessor Ex.O2 and documents Ex.O3 to Ex.O11 have been tendered.

5.                We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

6.                Admittedly, the vehicle bearing registration no. HR-05/S:4203 was insured with opposite party for the period of 16.6.2007 to 15.6.2008. As per the case of the complainant, the vehicle was purchased by him from the previous owner Madan Mohan, the registration of the vehicle was transferred in his name on 18.10.2007 and he gave intimation for transfer of the policy to the opposite party on 22.10.2007. The vehicle had met with an accident on 3.6.2008 during subsistence of the insurance policy.

7.                It is worth pointing out at the very outset that the opposite party appointed Lt. Col. Ajay Ahlawat as Surveyor and Loss Assessor of the vehicle regarding the accident which had taken place in the year 2007. As per the report of Lt. Col. Ajay Ahlawat, the copy of which is Ex.O3, the accident had taken place on 26.6.2007. The complainant purchased the vehicle after the said accident, registration certificate was transferred in his name on 18.10.2007 and he sent to opposite party intimation regarding transfer of the policy on 22.10.2007. The present claim has been filed by the complainant in respect of the accident of the same vehicle, which took place on 3.6.2008, while he was registered owner thereof. Thus, it is emphatically clear that written statement and the documents of the opposite party do not pertain to the claim of the complainant. The present complaint is regarding accident dated 3.6.2008, whereas the written statement and documents of the opposite party relate to some accident, which had taken place on 26.6.2007, when previous owner Madan Mohan Chaudhary was the registered owner of the vehicle.

8.                Learned counsel for the opposite party contended that the complainant had no insurable interest in the vehicle as he did not get the policy transferred in his claim prior to accident. The argument cannot be accepted being devoid of force. The complainant has produced the copy of the letter dated 22.10.2007 Ex.C6 and the courier receipt Ex.C7, according to which he had informed the opposite party that the vehicle was transferred in his name on 18.10.2007 by the Registration Authority Karnal. He had requested the opposite party for transferring the policy in his name. No document worth the name has been placed on record by the opposite party regarding rejecting or accepting the application of the complainant. In the absence of any evidence, it is to be considered that the request of the complainant was accepted. Therefore, at this stage it does not lie in the mouth of the opposite party to say that the policy was not transferred in the name of the complainant and he had no insurable interest at the time of the accident dated 3.6.2008.

9.                Next contention raised by the learned counsel for the opposite party is that the complainant had not lodged any claim with the opposite party. The complainant has filed the affidavit reiterating his allegations. The opposite party has neither specifically pleaded in the written statement about the claim of the complainant nor led any evidence, which may show that no claim was lodged by the complainant. The conduct of the opposite party is not like a prudent insurer.

10.              The complainant has produced the report of Engineer Arvind Koesis Ex.C8. Affidavit of Arvind Koesis has been filed as Ex.C12 in support of the report. According to his report the net loss on repairable basis was Rs.3,12,015/-.The opposite party has not produced any report of surveyor/loss assessor regarding inspection and assessment of loss regarding damage to the vehicle in the accident dated 3.6.2008. Thus, the evidence of the complainant has gone completely unrebutted and unchallenged and there is no reason to disbelieve the same.

11.              The complainant has also produced the copy of First Information Report regarding accident dated 3.6.2008. Apart from that the copy of the order of Commissioner under Workmen’s Compensation Act, Karnal dated 19.1.2011 has also been produced as Ex.C12, regarding grant of Workmen’s Compensation in respect of the death of Suraj Parkash driver of the vehicle no.HR-05/A:4203 due to injuries sustained in the accident dated 3.6.2008. From this evidence coupled with the affidavit of complainant it stands proved that the vehicle of the complainant had met with an accident on 3.6.2008 and Suraj Parkash driver of the vehicle succumbed to the injuries sustained in the said accident.

12.              In view of the aforediscussed facts and circumstances, we have no hesitation in observing that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Therefore, complainant is entitled to get compensation of Rs.3,12,015/- as loss assessed by the surveyor.

13.              As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the opposite party to pay Rs.3,12,015/- to the complainant as loss assessed by the surveyor  alongwith interest thereon @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till its realization. We further direct the opposite party no.1 to pay Rs.5500/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for the litigation expenses. This order shall be complied within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 27.12.2016

                                                                                      (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                                         President,

                                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                             (Anil Sharma)

                               Member`