Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 416.
Instituted on : 20.07.2017.
Decided on : 19.08.2019.
Narender age 28 years, son of Bhalle Ram r/o Prem Nager, Bhiwani.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- The New India Assurance Company Ltd., through its Branch Manager. Office at Model Town, Delhi Road, Rohtak.
- The New India Assurance Company Ltd., through its Divisional Office, at 1st Floor, Vardhman Complex, Opposite Civil Hospital, Delhi road, Sonipat.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Ram Niwas Duggal, Advocate for complainant.
Sh.R.K.Bhardwaj, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that complainant is registered owner of vehicle bearing no.HR-12V-3300 which was insured with the opposite party vide policy no.35420031150100000404 for the period 21.05.2015 to 20.05.2016 and IDV of the vehicle was Rs.500000/-. That on 20.04.2016, the said vehicle met with an accident near Rohtak and due to this accident, said vehicle got total damaged. The OPs were intimated immediately after the accident and claim form was also submitted with requisite documents. That the surveyor was appointed by the opposite party, who inspected the vehicle, obtained the signatures of complainant on blank documents and submitted his report in the office of insurance company. That complainant submitted all the documents to the opposite party for getting the claim of vehicle. But despite repeated requests of the complainant, the opposite parties have not made the payment of the amount of claim till date. That the act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to pay the claim of Rs.500000/- as damages of the vehicle alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant as explained in relief clause.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties appeared and filed their written reply submitting therein that complainant has no insurable interest in the vehicle because at the time of accident, Narinder was not the owner of the said vehicle. The R.C. was transferred on dated 17.07.2014 in the name of Narinder and on 16.12.2015 the vehicle was transferred in the name of Smt. Geeta w/o Sh.Khushi Ram. Thus at the time of accident, the complainant was not the owner of the said vehicle and he has no insurable interest. That at the time of accident Kushi Ram was driving the said vehicle. Kushi Ram is husband of present owner Smt. Geeta. This also shows that Narinder was not owner at the time of accident and he has no insurable interest. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied. Opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs..
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C12 and the evidence of complainant was closed by the order dated 02.04.2019 of this Forum. Ld. counsel for the opposite party has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R11 and has closed his evidence on dated 16.07.2019.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. In the present case, insurance and accident of the vehicle is not disputed. The surveyor was appointed by the opposite party who as per his report Ex.R11 has assessed the loss amounting to Rs.232648/-, but the claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the opposite parties on the ground that the at the time of accident, complainant has no insurable interest in the vehicle as the complainant was not the owner of the said vehicle. The R.C. was transferred on dated 17.07.2014 in the name of Narinder and on 16.12.2015, the vehicle was transferred in the name of Sumit s/o Sh. Rajbir. After that, it was transferred in the name of Dharambir s/o Shri bhagwan and on 04.05.2017 the vehicle was transferred in the name of Smt. Geeta w/o Sh. Kushi Ram. Thus at the time of accident the complainant was not the owner of the said vehicle and has no insurable interest. To prove this fact, opposite parties have placed on record document Ex.R1, as per which NOC of the vehicle has been issued by R.A.Bhiwani to R.A. MV.Sonipat on 14.10.2015. After that it was registered in the name of Sumit s/o Rajbir and as per Ex.R3, further NOC was again issued by R.A. M.V. Sonipat to R.A.M.V. Rohtak on 10.12.2016. As per Ex.R6, the vehicle was transferred in the name of Smt. Geeta by Dharambir. Hence on the date of accident i.e. 20.04.2016, the vehicle in question was in the name of Sumit s/o Rajbir Singh which was transferred in the name of Sumit on 16.12.2015 i.e. before the accident. Hence on the date of accident, complainant was no insurable interest in the vehicle in question. In this regard, authority cited by ld. counsel for the complainant in Naveen Kumar Vs. Vijay Kumar and Ors. decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on dated 06.02.2018 is not fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case as in the alleged case, insurance company was not the party and it was a third party claim.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case come to the conclusion that on the date of accident, complainant was no insurable interest in the vehicle in question. As such, present complaint is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
7. 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:
19.08.2019.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
…………………………………
Ved Pal, Member.
………………………………..
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
