DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC. No. 19 of 21-01-2009<br /> Decided on : 03-07-2009 <br /> <br /> Harpal Singh S/o Nazar Singh aged 51 years R/o Village and P.O. Mallan, Tehsil Gidderbaha District Mukatsar.<br /> .... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1.The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, 4501 Bank street, Bathinda 151 005 through its Divisional Manager. ...opposite party<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM <br /> <br /> Sh. George, President<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh. B.S. Brar, Advocate, counsel for the complainant<br /> For the Opposite parties : Sh.Jaideep Nayyar,Advocate counsel, for the opposite party. <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> GEORGE, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> 1. Sh. Harpal Singh, Complainant has filed the present complaint against the opposite party under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as 'Act') with the allegations that he is the owner of vehicle Tata 407 Canter bearing Registration No. PB-30D 2456 which he got insured with the opposite party vide Insurance policy No. 233200 dated 14-09-2007 valid upto 13-09-2008 on payment of usual charges/premium of Rs. 10,802/-. The vehicle was being used as public carrier/transport vehicle. On 28-05-2008, when the said vehicle was being driven by Sh. Swaran Singh S/o Surjit Singh who was holding a valid driving licence, it met with an accident as it struck against a tree causing huge loss to the vehicle. The complainant had to spent an amount of Rs. 60,000/- approximately to bring the vehicle in roadworthy condition. The accident was brought to the notice of the opposite party and Insurance claim was lodged, but the opposite party has repudiated the Insurance claim on the ground that vehicle was sold by him to one Sh. Kuldip Singh and therefore, he has no insurable interest at the time when accident occurred. He claimed that he being registered owner, has only insurable interest. The opposite party has wrongly repudiated his claim. He claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 75,000/- as damages to the vehicles, an amount of Rs. 50,000/- with interest @18% P.A. on account of mental agony, harassment and an amount of Rs. 11,000/- as cost of the complaint.<br /> 2. The allegations are being contested by the opposite party raising legal objections that; complaint is not maintainable; complainant has no cause of action; this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint; it is based on false and frivolous fact and is liable to be dismissed with special costs of Rs. 10,000/-; the complainant is not entitled for the reliefs claimed; he is not consumer; there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party; vehicle was being used for commercial purposes and the vehicle has already been sold by the complainant/insured to one Kuldeep Singh on 20-08-2007, as such, he had no insurable interest. <br /> 3. On merits also all the allegations of the complainant are not admitted as correct and as such, denied. It has been pleaded that on receiving the information regarding the alleged accident, surveyor has been deputed who has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 35,225/- but since the vehicle No. PB-30D-2456 has been sold by the complainant to one Kuldeep Singh S/o Ajmer Singh on 20-08-2007, he has no insurable interest, as such his claim has rightly been repudiated on this ground.<br /> 4. Both the parties in order to prove their respective contentions have led respective evidence. <br /> 5. The complainant Sh. Harpal Singh has filed his affidavit Ex. C-1, Certificate- cum- policy schedule Ex. C-2, Insurance Cover Note Ex. C-3, Estimate slips Ex. C-4 to Ex. C-6, Bill dated 15-06-2008 Ex. C-7, Bill/Retail Invoices dated 19-06-2008 and 18-06-2008 Ex. C-8 & Ex. C-9 respectively, photocopy of Registration Certificate Ex. C-10 and Retail Invoices dated 25-03-2009 and 16-03-2009 Ex. C-11 and Ex. C-12 respectively.<br /> 6. To controvert the evidence of the complainant, the opposite party produced on record affidavit of Dr. J L Ahuja, Sr. Divisional Manager Ex. R-1, photocopy of affidavit of complainant Ex. R-2, photocopy of I.M.T. Gr No. 17 Ex. R-3 and photocopy of Insurance Policy Ex. R-4.<br /> 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record of the case.<br /> 8. The claim of the complainant has been repudiated on the ground that the complainant has no insurable interest as he has already sold his vehicle to one Sh. Kuldeep Singh. The perusal of the affidavit Ex. R-1 of Dr. J L Ahuja, Sr. Divisional Manager reveals that the surveyor was appointed immediately on receiving information regarding the alleged accident and the surveyor assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 35,225/-. This fact remained uncontroverted. The opposite party has admitted that the accident occurred and complainant has suffered loss as per the assessor of the opposite party to the tune of Rs. 35,225/-. The only reason for repudiating the claim of the complainant which is being put forward on behalf of the opposite party is that the complainant had sold his vehicle No. PB-39-D-2456 on 20-08-2007 to one Kuldeep Singh and as such, on the date of accident i.e. 28-05-2008, the complainant has no insurable interest in the vehicle. This contention raised on behalf of the opposite party appears to be totally unsustainable for the reason that registration of the vehicle remained in the name of the complainant despite the fact that affidavit Ex. R-2 was executed by the complainant for transfer of his vehicle in favour of Sh. Kuldeep Singh. <br /> 9. The vehicle was admittedly hypothecated and therefore, ownership of the vehicle had been transferred to Sh. Kuldeep Singh and perhaps that may be the reason that the actual/original ownership as per registration certificate remained with the complainant. The complainant being a registered owner having valid Insurance is definitely entitled to be indemnified for the loss he has sustained due to accident. This view is supported as per the judgements delivered by our own Hon'ble State Commission, Chandigarh, in the case of Harjit Singh Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., I(2007) CPJ 349 wherein it has been held that the “Original owner alone has locus standi to claim insurance from insurer.” and in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited & Anr Vs. Dharam Pal I(2007) CPJ 150 wherein it has been held that “Even assuming that complainant sold vehicle, registration certificate continued to stand in his name. Legally, complainants would remain owners on the basis of registration certificate – Insurer not absolved of its liability to indemnify insured – Liable.”<br /> 10. The perusal of the evidence of the complainant Harpal Singh reveals that he has filed his affidavit Ex. C-1 wherein he has reiterated the facts he has pleaded in his complaint. He has brought on the record Certificate-cum-policy schedule Ex. C-2, Insurance cover note Ex. C-3, rough estimate of the damages caused to his vehicle Ex. C-4 to Ex. C-6 and bill for different amounts he has allegedly spent for repairs etc Ex. C-7 to Ex. C-9, photocopy of the registration of the vehicle Ex. C-10, Retail invoices dated 25-03-2009 and 16-03-2009 for purchase of certain consumable articles Ex. C-11 and Ex. C-12. The claim of the complainant is that after the accident took place, it was brought to the notice of the opposite party and thereafter the complainant had to spent an amount of Rs. 60,000/- on account of damages caused to his vehicle and an amount of Rs. 15,000/- on account of loss of earnings for the period, the vehicle remained under repairs and the complainant had to pay salary to the driver. The perusal of the affidavit Ex. R-1 of Dr. J L Ahuja, Sr. Divisional Manager, filed on behalf of the opposite party, reveals that on receiving the information regarding alleged accident, the surveyor had been deputed who assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 35,225/-. The assessment made by the surveyor is not at all challenged either in the pleading or in the affidavit Ex. C-1 filed on behalf of the complainant. The claim of the complainant that he has spent an amount of Rs. 60,000/- for repair of his vehicle and Rs. 15,000/- for non-use of vehicle during repair and also payment of salary to his driver is not supported by any documentary evidence on record. The documents Ex. C-4 to Ex. C-6 are rough estimates and are not authenticated by any authorised agency where-from the complainant purchased these articles for getting his damaged vehicle repaired. Even documents Ex. C-7 to Ex. C-9 also do not make any sense to conclude that these bills pertain to the repair of the accidental vehicle of the complainant. The bills Ex. C-11 & Ex. C-12 dated 25-03-2009 and 16-03-2009 further do not in any manner can be related to the repair of the vehicle of the complainant which was damaged in an accident on 28-05-2008. Therefore, the claim of the complainant that he has spent an amount of Rs. 60,000/- for the repair of his vehicle is not substantiated from the record which he has brought in his evidence. <br /> 11. Taking into consideration the clear position and facts of the case as has been discussed above, we are of the considered view that the complainant is entitled for an amount of Rs. 35,225/-, the loss assessed by the surveyor, alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of complaint i.e. 21-01-2009 till realisation besides litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 500/-.<br /> 12. In the result, the complaint is accepted and the opposite party is directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs. 35,225/- alongwith interest @9% P.A. w.e.f. 21-01-2009 till realisation besides cost of Rs. 500/-, within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.<br /> 13. The copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs and the file be consigned.<br /> Pronounced :<br /> 03-07-2009 <br /> <br /> (George)<br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr. Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member <br /> <br />