Haryana

Sonipat

278/2014

SURAJ BHAN S/O HARDEVA - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

JAIDEEP KAUSIK

28 Aug 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

             

 

                             Complaint No.278 of 2014

                             Instituted on:20.10.2014                                           Date of order:31.08.2015

 

Suraj Bhan son of Hardeva, resident of village Khanda, tehsil Kharkhoda, distt. Sonepat.

…Complainant.

Versus

 

Oriental Insurance Company Limited, office  204-R Model Town, Atlas road, Sonepat through its Branch Manager.

                                                …Respondent.

 

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF        

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by:    Sh. Jaideep Kaushik Adv. for complainant.

              Sh. Virender Khatri Adv. for respondent. 

 

BEFORE    NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT.

          PRABHA WATI, MEMBER.

          D.V. RATHI, MEMBER.

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondent alleging himself to be the registered owner of vehicle i.e. Motor cycle no.HR-10R/7519 and the same was insured with the respondent for the period w.e.f. 13.7.2013 to 12.7.2014.  But unfortunately the said motor cycle was stolen on 21.11.2013. FIR no.473 dated 22.11.2013 u/s 379 IPC with PS Civil Lines Bhiwani was lodged.  Untrace report was also issued by the learned court of JMIC Bhiwani on 3.9.2014.   The complainant lodged the claim with the respondent and submitted all the required documents.  The said motor cycle was never sold by the complainant to one Rajpal Dahiya nor he took any amount from him and the said vehicle is still registered in the name of the complainant.  Thus, the respondent has wrongly repudiated the claim of the complainant and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        In reply, the respondent has submitted that the complainant has concealed the fact that the vehicle has been sold by him to his nephew Rajpal Dahiya who admit this fact before the surveyor and recorded his statement. So, now the complainant has no insurable interest in the vehicle.  The respondent has rightly repudiate the claim of the complainant and the complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.        We have heard the arguments advanced by the ld. Counsel for both the parties at length and we have also gone through the entire relevant material available on the case file carefully & minutely.

4.        Ld. Counsel for the respondent has argued that the complainant has concealed the fact that the vehicle has been sold by him to his nephew Rajpal Dahiya who admit this fact before the surveyor and recorded his statement. So, now the complainant has no insurable interest in the vehicle.  The respondent has rightly repudiate the claim of the complainant and the complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation.

          On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the complainant has argued that the vehicle was never sold by the complainant to any person or to Rajpal Dahiya. The vehicle still stands in the name of the complainant. Thus, the respondent has wrongly repudiated the claim of the complainant.

          We have perused the copy of RC and insurance policy of the vehicle in question.  As per these documents, the vehicle still stands in the name of the complainant. The vehicle was insured for Rs.31000/-  and the policy was issued from Sonepat on 12.7.2013.  The vehicle in question was stolen on 21.11.2013 and FIR was lodged with the concerned police station on 22.11.2013.  Untrace report (Ex.C3) is also available on the case file.  So, in our view, the respondent has wrongly and illegally repudiated the legal and genuine claim of the complainant by taking lame excuse regarding the vehicle already sold to some one.  Whereas the complainant has been able to prove that the vehicle still stands in his name and the same was never sold to any person.  Accordingly, we held the repudiation of the claim as wrong and unjustified and the respondent is hereby directed to make the payment of Rs.31000/- to the complainant within a period of one month from the date of passing of this order, failing which, the above said amount shall fetch interest at the rate of 09% per annum from the date of passing of this order till realization. The complainant is also directed to submit the affidavit, indemnity bond, letter of subrogation etc. and form 29 & 30 to the respondent for transfer of the vehicle in the name of insurance company.

 

          With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed.

          Certified copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

(Prabha Wati)        (DV Rathi)                 (Nagender Singh-President)

Member DCDRF        Member DCDRF                   DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced:31.08.2015