Punjab

Sangrur

CC/94/2018

Manjit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. S.P.Sharma

05 Apr 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                            

 

                                                                       Complaint No. 94

Instituted on:  21.02.2018

                                                                       Decided on:    05.04.2019

 

Manjit Singh aged about 60 years son of Gurcharan Singh, resident of House No.293, Street No.6-A, Basant Nagar, Lohara, Shimlapuri, Ludhiana.

 

                                                        …. Complainant.       

                                         Versus

1.     The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Regd. And Head Office A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi through its MD.

2.     The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. having Branch Office at Sangrur through its Branch Manager.

3.     Patran Fin and Invest Co. Regd. Patran,  District Patiala through its M.D.

             ….Opposite parties

 

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:      Shri Attar Gulab Singh, Advocate                           

 

FOR OPP. PARTIES 1&2     :    Shri Bhushan Garg, Advocate.

 

FOR OP No.3                      :      Exparte.      

 

 

Quorum

         

                   Vinod Kumar Gulati, Presiding Member

                    Manisha, Member

 

ORDER:   

 

Vinod Kumar Gulati, Presiding Member

 

1.             Shri Manjit Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant availed the services of the Ops by getting insured his car Tata Indigo bearing number PB-11-AV-0118 model 2010 vide cover note number 579266 dated 10.7.2015. Further case of the complainant is that the vehicle of the complainant in question damaged in an accident on 28.12.2015 within the jurisdiction of Police Station Amargarh, of which report number 18 dated 28.12.2015 was lodged with the police station Amargarh.  The grievance of the complainant is that the Ops repudiated the rightful claim of the complainant vide its letter dated 30.11.2017, whereas the complainant spent an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- on the repairs of the car.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to pay to the complainant the claim amount of Rs.2,50,000/-  along with interest @ 18% per annum from  the date of accident till realization and further the complainant has claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by the OPs, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Ops as the claim has been repudiated after considering all the facts, that the complaint is false, frivolous, malafide, mischievous, bad in law and that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands.  On merits, it is admitted that the complainant got inured his Tata Indigo car bearing number PB-11-AU-0118 for the period from 10.7.2015 to 9.7.2016 vide policy number 2235502/31/2016/1216 for Rs.2,50,000/- subject to the terms and conditions of the policy.  It is stated further that the complainant was not registered owner of the car on the date of insurance but the complainant has shown affidavit that the complainant had purchased this car and will get it transferred in his name at the earliest, but the complainant failed to get the registration certification transferred in his name before the date of accident and the same was applied for transfer of ownership on 11.12.2015 and the same was transferred on 2.3.2016.  It is stated that the claim has rightly been repudiated.  Further it is stated that the complainant gave the intimation to the OPs on 12.2.2016 regarding the said loss i.e. after a delay of 46 days from the date of accident.   It is stated further that after receipt of the intimation, the Ops appointed eminent surveyor who reported that heavy rust marks were found on the vehicle, who submitted his report dated 2.9.2016 and declared the vehicle as total loss and assessed the liability of the OP at Rs.1,99,000/- after deducting salvage and policy clause amount.   The other allegations leveled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

 

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-6 copies of the documents and affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for Ops number 1 & 2 has produced Ex.OP-1&2/1 to Ex.OP1&2/12 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence. The learned counsel for the parties have also produced written arguments. 

 

4.             Record shows that the OP number 3 was proceeded against exparte.

 

5.             We have given a thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.

 

6.             It is admitted fact between the parties that the complainant got Tata Indigo Car in question insured from the OPs number 1 and 2 valid from the period 10.07.2015 to 09.07.2016 vide policy number 22354520/31/2016/1216 for ID value of Rs.2,50,000/- subject to terms and conditions of the policy and obtained Private Car Package Policy. During the subsistence of the policy, the vehicle met with an accident on 28.12.2015 and a report number 18 dated 28.12.2015 was lodged with PS Amargarh,  District Sangrur and removed the vehicle from the place of accident. From the documents submitted by the OPs, it has been observed that the complainant was not the registered owner on the date of the insurance. The complainant submitted the affidavit wherein he mentioned that he would get it (RC) transferred in his name at the earliest, but the complainant failed to get the RC transferred in his name before the accident. Further,  the complainant in his affidavit dated 30.05.2017 Ex.OP1&2/11 has submitted that the RC for transfer on his name was submitted to the Ludhiana Registration Authority and they delayed the transfer of RC on his name, but has not mentioned the date when he submitted the papers for change of name with the Registering Authority Ludhiana. Further, it is clear from the documents  that the complainant applied for transfer of ownership on 11.12.2015 and the same was transferred on 2.3.2016.  The claim of the complainant was repudiated by the OP vide letter dated 30.11.2017. Further the vehicle met with an accident on 28.12.2015, but the complainant informed the company on 12.02.2016 i.e. after 46 days from the date of accident. As there has been delay of 46 days in intimating the accident, in our view, due to late information the complainant deprived the OPs to inspect the vehicle at the place of the accident and to access the manner in which the accident took placed extent of damages occurred.

 

7.             The complainant along with his written arguments has placed on record the laws laid down by the Hon’ble Chhatisgarh State Consumer Commission in case of Oriental Insurance Co. Limited Vs. Chanda Devi, 2007 (3) C.P.J.176 and that of Hon'ble National Consumer Commission in case of OIC Limited  Vs. Damni  and others, 2006(1) C.P.J 408 and OIC  Vs. Dipender Kaur, 2016 (1) C.P.J 603.  The ratio of these cases is not directly applicable to the instant case.

 

8.             The OPs along with their written arguments have submitted the citations i.e. D.P.Srivastava Vs.  Reliance General Insurance Co. Limited, 2014 (4) AICJ 570 decided by the Hon'ble National Consumer Commission and Hon'ble  Punjab State Commission in case of OIC Limited `Vs. Balbir Singh, 2012 (2) C.P.J.38  and Hon'ble Chhattisgarh State Commission in case of Abdul Jabbar Vs. OIC Limited, 2005 (1) CPJ 341. As per the ruling of the Hon'ble National Commission,  reference has been made to Section 50 (b) of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 as per this provision, “the petitioner was bound to get the RC transferred in his name and intimate insurance company, but the complainant failed to get transferred the RC in his name within the specified period as mentioned in the Act. Further, at the time of taking the policy, the complainant had no insurable interest in the vehicle” we are of the view that the OPs have rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant. Further the Hon'ble State Commission, Punjab in its decision has set aside the orders of the District Forum wherein the accident took place on 7.5.2005 and intimation to the Ops (Insurance Company) was given on 19.05.2005 i.e. about 40 days after removing the car from the place of accident to the workshop and ruled that it proves that the case of the respondent was totally false. As the ratio of above cases are straightway applicable to the instant case, we find no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and complaint merits dismissal and is hereby dismissed. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and there after file be consigned to record room.

 

                        Pronounced.

                        April 5, 2019.                                    

                                                          (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                             Presiding Member

 

 

 

                                                                (Manisha)

                                                                  Member