DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH Complaint Case No | : | 670 OF 2010 | Date of Institution | : | 13.10.2010 | Date of Decision | : | 30.11.2011 |
Mrs. Monica Rampal, wife of Kanwal Rampal, resident of Flat No.E-85, GH 80, Sector 20, Panchkula. Present Address:- House No. 2022, Sector 23-C, Chandigarh. ---Complainant V E R S U S [1] The Oriental Insurance Company Limited (A Govt. of India Undertaking), through its Regional/ Divisional Manager Regd. & Head Office: Oriental House, A 25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi – 110002. [2] Branch Head, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited (A Govt. of India Undertaking), SCO No. 109-110-111, Surendra Building, Sector 17, Chandigarh – 160017. [3] Dr. G.S. Bhatti, Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, SCO No.10-A, 1st Floor, Sector 7-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh. ---Opposite Parties BEFORE: MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA PRESIDING MEMBER SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU MEMBER Argued By: Sh. Deepak Aggarwal, Adv. for the Complainant. Sh. D.C. Kumar, Adv. for the OPs. PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER 1. Complainant has filed the present complaint against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as OPs for short), on the grounds that the complainant is the owner of a car Tata Indica V2 (Diesel) bearing Registration No.HR-03F-4381. The above said car was originally purchased by the father of the complainant Sh. J. C. Malik son of Sh. Khem Chand R/o H.No.575, Sector 11, Panchkula. The said vehicle was hypothecated with H.D.F.C. Bank, Sector 8, Chandigarh and was duly insured through the OPs. A photocopy of Registration Certificate and Insurance Policy are annexed as Annexures C-1 and C-2). Sh. J. C. Malik suffered a massive heart attack on 13.12.2007 and subsequently, expired on 17.12.2007. The Death Certificate is annexed as Annexure C-3. The intimation regarding the death was given to OP No.2 telephonically and the complainant approached the H.D.F.C. Bank for transfer of hypothecation of the vehicle in question in favour of the complainant. The necessary documentation was also done by the complainant and no objection certificate for the change of ownership of the said vehicle was given by the H.D.F.C. Bank vide letter dated 10.10.2010. 2. On having received the ‘No Objection Certificate’, the complainant approached the office of Registering Authority, Panchkula along with documents required for transfer of vehicle in her name. Few objections were raised for seeking No Objection from all other Legal Heirs of Sh. J. C. Malik, which was also duly submitted and ultimately, the vehicle was transferred in the name of the complainant on 1.5.2009. The detail of the documents is annexed as Annexures C-5 to C-8. 3. That on 5.5.2009, the complainant approached OP No.3 vide application (Annexure C-9) for transfer of insurance policy in her name and while doing so, submitted the copy of registration certificate as is mandatory. The OP NO.3 asked the complainant to bring the vehicle in question for physical inspection and verification, which was a necessary formality. As the vehicle was out of town, the same was to return after a couple of days, hence, in the meantime, the vehicle in question met with an accident on 6.5.2009 around 5.30 to 6 PM at Panchkula causing huge massive damage to the vehicle in question. The complainant informed the OPs about the happening of the accident on 7.5.2009 and a request for deputing a surveyor was also made so as to assess the damage/loss caused to the vehicle. At the directions of the OP, the vehicle was taken to Swami Innovative Autos Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.5, Industrial Area – I, Chandigarh but it is alleged that no surveyor was appointed for inspection of the vehicle. It was after repeated reminders dated 12.5.2009, 18.5.2009 and 12.6.2009 (Annexures C-10 to C-12 respectively), the surveyor was appointed who assessed the loss. 4. It is also submitted that the OPs asked the complainant to fill up new proposal form to which the complainant objected by saying that as the OPs were only required to make necessary endorsement in the present policy document, there was no question of filling up a new proposal form. In the present case, the vehicle was got inherited and there was no issue of sale or purchase was involved. 5. The complainant received a letter dated 20.11.2009 (Annexure C-13) demanding a certain documents such as Death Certificate and also the Proof of transfer of Registration in favour of the complainant. The complainant responded vide his application dated 11.12.2009 (Annexure C-14) while furnishing all the necessary documents, had also explained the circumstances under which the said vehicle was transferred. 6. The complainant is aggrieved by the repudiation of her genuine claim, which was intimated to her through a letter dated 10.2.2010 (Annexure C-15) mentioning the ground that “As on date of loss of the vehicle, the insurance policy was in the name of deceased J. C. Malik and that the loss is after the expiry of more than three months of the death of the deceased.” The complainant has contested the stand of the OPs and has prayed for the following relief:- (i) refund of Rs.1,11,026/- along with interest @18% per annum w.e.f. 27.8.2009; (ii) pay Rs.1 Lac as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony; (iii) pay Rs.11,000/- as costs of litigation. 7. On notice, OPs have filed their joint version/ written statement and have contested the claim of the complainant by raising preliminary objections to the present complaint stating that the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands and has concealed the true and material facts to take undue benefits. It is also stated that the OP had duly considered the claim of the complainant whereas on looking into the facts, there was no evidence of insurable interest of the complainant in the said vehicle in question at the time of accident. Hence, the claim was rightly repudiated. 8. On merits, while giving a parawise reply of the present complaint, OPs have admitted that the vehicle No.HR-03F-4381 was got insured with the OP in the name of deceased Sh. J. C. Malik. It is further mentioned that at the time of the accident, the complainant was not the owner of the vehicle. The relevant insurance policy is annexed as Annexure R-1.While admitting the contents of Para No.3 only to the extent that it being a matter of records, the OPs have no knowledge about it. Para No.2 and Paras No.4 to 9 are completely denied for want of knowledge. Even the contents of Para No.10 are claimed to be wrong and denied on the ground that the complainant had ever applied for transfer of policy on 5.5.2009 and no letter has been received by OP in this regard. The contents of Para No.11 of the complaint are admitted only to the extent that in case a policy is to be transferred in the name of new owner, a physical inspection of the vehicle is required. 9. The contents of Para No.3 of the complaint are also denied and incorrect and further state that the OPs deputed the surveyor for assessment of the loss immediately on receipt of intimation. But the fact with regard to take the vehicle to Swami Innovative Autos Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh for repairs is denied. The surveyor had assessed the loss amounting to Rs.47994/- subject to deposit of salvage and bill/cash memo with the OPs. It is again repeated that no delay was made in deputation of the surveyor after receipt of intimation of loss. 10. The OPs have categorically stated that in case of transfer of vehicle, the new owner, fresh proposal form duly completed in all respect by new owner is required as per rules for transfer of vehicle (GR-17) of the All India Motor Tariff, which is reproduced as under: - “GR.17. Transfers “On transfer of Ownership, the liability only whether under a Liability Only Policy or under a package policy, is deemed to have been transferred in favour of the person to whom the motor vehicle is transferred with effect from the date of transfer. The transferee shall apply within fourteen days from the date of transfer of writing under recorded delivery to the insurer who has insured the vehicle with the details of the registration of the vehicle, the date of transfer of the vehicle, the previous insurer of the vehicle and the number and date of the insurance policy so that the insurer may make the necessary changes in his record and issue fresh certificate of insurance in case of Package policies, the transfer of the Own Damage section of the policy in favour of the transferee, shall be made by the insurer only on receipt of a specific request from the transferee along with a consent of the transferor. If the transferee is not entitled to the benefit of the no Claim Bonus (NCB) shown on the policy, or is entitled to a lesser percentage of NCB than that existing in the policy, recovery of the difference between the transferee’s entitlement if any, and that shown on the policy, shall be made before effecting the transfer.” 11. From the foregoing, it is clear that a fresh proposal form from the transferee is required for effecting necessary changes of transfer in the records of the insurer/OP. The Paras No.17 to 20 are also denied for want of knowledge and being wrong. 12. In their reply to Para No.21, the OPs have categorically stated that it is wrong to believe that the vehicle is deemed to have been transferred in the name of the transferee automatically. Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act deals with the third party. The claim of the complainant has been duly considered by the OPs on the basis of the documents and papers submitted by her and a bonafide decision was taken by the competent authority. 13. It is further mentioned that such kind of repudiation is within the existing rules of the company and the provisions of law as laid down by the Supreme Court of India. Finally, it is also denied that the complainant at all suffered any mental harassment on account of any deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Finally, it is submitted by the OPs that if at all the learned Forum fastened the liability on the OPs, the liability of the OPs is limited to the amount of Rs.47,994/- as assessed by the surveyor who is duly licensed by the I.R.D.A. OPs pray for the dismissal of the present complaint with costs. 14. Parties led their respective evidences. 15. Having gone through the entire complaint, version of the OPs, the evidence of the parties and with the able assistance of the ld. Counsel for the parties, we have come to the following conclusions:- (i) It is evident from the complaint as well as the documents available on the file that the vehicle bearing Registration No.HR-03F-4381 was insured in the first place in the name of Sh. J. C. Malik and had met with an accident on the date 6.5.2009. A surveyor was deputed on 22.5.2009 and the survey was conducted the same day as is evident from the motor survey report (Annexure R-2). The loss reported was to the tune of Rs.99,476.88Ps whereas the assessed amount of loss came out to be Rs.47,994/- and expected salvage value is Rs.1417/-. The surveyor report ends with remarks “Payment may not be made to the Insured as there is not insurable interest”. (ii) We believe that in the light of the surveyor’s report, the two communications dated 20.11.2009 and 10.02.2010 were dispatched by the OPs to the complainant. In their letter dated 20.11.2009, it is clearly mentioned that as the vehicle is insured in the name of Sh. J. C. Malik who as per the intimation of the complainant has expired. As the registration of the vehicle in question stands transferred in the name of the complainant, there is no insurable interest of the complainant, hence, the same was denied vide their letter dated 10.2.2010. In this letter, the OP has categorically stated that “As per policy condition the cover remains enforce for 3 months from the date of death or date of expiry of Policy…..As on date of loss to the vehicle, the Insurance Policy was in the name of deceased Mr. J. C. Malik. Since the registration of the vehicle is in the different name and the loss is after the expiry of more than three months of death of the deceased the instant claim is not tenable due to non existence of insurance policy in the name of her owner i.e. Mrs. Monika Rampal……” (In the present case, the complainant). (iii) It is evident that while sending the letter dated 20.11.2009, the OPs failed to investigate the fact about the actual date of transfer of the vehicle in the name of the complainant i.e. either the surveyor should have done the needful so as to establish the veracity of the documents presented before him or the OPs themselves should have enquired before reaching a definite decision. Whereas no such effort was made by the OPs before dispatching the letter dated 10.2.2010 wherein they have clearly mentioned “As on date of loss of vehicle, the insurance policy was in the name of deceased M. C. Malik but the vehicle is in the name of the complainant”. As such, the claim stands repudiated. Hence, we find OPs negligent as well as deficient in service by repudiating the claim of the complainant even though as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court mentioned by them, the complainant qualified to apply for the necessary amendment in the policy within 14 days of the vehicle being transferred in her name. The same is also in consonance with the provisions of GR-17 of All India Motor Tariff. The OPs instead of having helped the complainant in making necessary amendments/changes in the policy document for which she had already applied to them vide her letter dated 5.5.2009 (Annexure C-9) a day prior to the happening of the accident of the vehicle in question. The only condition for the necessary amendment was the physical inspection of the vehicle in question and we feel that the complainant was not at fault for any delay but however, unfortunately, the vehicle met with an accident on the very next day. In the present circumstances, though there is no breach of any terms and conditions of the policy, the OPs should have considered the genuine claim of the complainant as assessed by the surveyor. (iv) In the present complaint, the complainant has failed to convincingly prove her claim of refund of Rs.1,11,026/-. Whereas the same has been assessed as Rs.47,994/- as per the surveyor’s assessment. There is no expert report to rebut the assessment of the surveyor nor any document supporting the claim of Rs.1,11,026/-. (v) It is also noticed that the OPs have repeatedly claimed in their version that they were very prompt in appointing the surveyor whereas the documents on record suggest that there was a delay of nearly 15 days in the appointment of the surveyor as the surveyor report itself states that the happening of the accident is dated 6.5.2009 and the date of appointment of the surveyor is 22.5.2009, which is a breach of I.R.D.A. Guidelines wherein it is very clearly mentioned that the surveyor is to be appointed within 48 hours of the intimation of the claim, which is also a deficiency on the part of the OPs. 16. In the light of above observations, we allow the present complaint and direct the OPs to release the assessed amount of Rs.47,994/- to the complainant along with interest @9% per annum from the date of assessment till actual payment. The OPs are further saddled with an amount of Rs.7,000/- as costs of litigation. 17. This order be complied with by the OPs within a period of 30 days failing which the aforesaid amount, except limitation costs, would attract penal interest @18% per annum from the date of order till actual payment. 18. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced 30th November 2011. Sd/- (MADHU MUTNEJA) PRESIDING MEMBER Sd/- (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) MEMBER Ad/-
DISTRICT FORUM – II | | CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 670 OF 2010 | | PRESENT: None Dated the 30th day of November, 2011 | O R D E R Vide our detailed order of even date, recorded separately, the complaint has been allowed. After compliance, file be consigned to record room. |
| | | (Jaswinder Singh Sidhu) | | (Madhu Mutneja) | Member | | Member |
| | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | MR. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER | | 
