Haryana

Ambala

CC/249/2018

Jaspal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

UII Co LTd - Opp.Party(s)

U.S.Chauhan

08 Apr 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

 

                                                          Complaint case No.:  249 of 2018.

                                                          Date of Institution         :    07.08.2018.

                                                          Date of decision   :    08.04.2021.

 

Jaspal Singh Prop. M/s Fair Brother Auto Sales, Oppo. Haryana Motor Market, G.T. Road, Ambala City, Haryana (India).

          ……. Complainant.

                                                Versus

 

1. United India Insurance Company Ltd., through Senior Regional Manager, 2^nd Floor, Triloki Chambers, Opp. Municipal Corporation, Kasera Bazaar Road, Punjabi Mohalla, Sadar Bazar, Ambala Cantt, Haryana 133001.

 

2. M/s Swami Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., S.C.O. No.1, Sector 16, Near HDFC Bank, Panchkula.

 

               ….…. Opposite Parties.

 

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member.

Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.                 

                            

Present:       Shri U.S.Chauhan, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

Shri R.K.Vig, Advocate, counsel for the OP No.1.

OP No.2 given up vide order dated 17.07.2019.

 

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President

Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1. To pay Rs.1,66,123/- as claim amount alongwith interest @18% p.a.
2. To pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for financial loss alongwith interest @18% p.a.
3. To pay Rs.2,00,000/-  for causing mental harassment.
4. To pay Rs.21,000/- as cost of litigation.

                   OR

                   Any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit.

 

Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is a proprietor of the firm M/s Fair Brother Auto Sales, which is duly registered under Haryana VAT, 2003 having TIN No.06821024406. He is the registered owner of LMV bearing registration No. HR01-AJ-2345, which was purchased from OP No.2 on 20.03.2014. OP No.2 had issued the sale certificate i.e. form No. 21 in the name of M/s Fair Brother Auto Sales, which is a proprietorship firm and also issued  form No.22, invoice of the said vehicle, gate pass and temporary registration number, issued in the name of the firm, at the time of purchase and before delivery said vehicle was duly insured with the OP No.1 from 23.03.2014 to 19.03.2015 vide policy No.110182/31/13/01/00001385, for which premium of Rs.15,448/- was paid to the OP No.1. The said vehicle is hypothecated with the HDFC Bank and he is under the burden to pay the EMI of the same. At the time of inception of the policy the OP No.1, assessed the IDV of the vehicle for Rs.6,86,650/- and issued the zero depreciation insurance policy, for which it charged Rs.955/- extra. In case the vehicle of the complainant met with an accident, then under the zero depreciation policy, he was entitled to avail cashless facility and had to pay only the compulsory deductable amount. On 29.10.2014, the said vehicle met with an accident at Karnal, while it was being driven by Shri Harpal Singh. Intimation regarding the same was given to OP No.1, who deputed a surveyor to assess the loss and instructed the complainant to bring the accidental vehicle to M/s City Automobiles, Ambala City. Estimate of loss occurred to vehicle was prepared by M/s City Automobiles on actual loss basis and the survey was also conducted. The surveyor assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.1,66,123/-. Complainant also submitted all the requisite documents as demanded by the surveyor for the purpose of approving and sanctioning the claim and after finding all the documents in order, surveyor of OP No.1 instructed M/s City Automobiles to carry out the repair of the vehicle in question as per approved estimated claim. The complainant approached M/s City Automobile for taking the delivery of the repaired vehicle, he got shocked and surprised when M/s City Automobiles asked the complainant that he has to pay the entire charges, before taking vehicle as his insurance claim was not approved by the insurance company. Complainant contacted OP no.1, but no satisfactory response was received from the office of OP No.1. Left with no other option complainant managed funds from his own sources, for taking the delivery as the complainant was suffering from financial loss, due to non availability of the vehicle, as the complainant was forced to hire a taxi, to meet out his personal obligations. Complainant also served a legal notice upon OP No.1, but after two months he received a reply from OP No.1 and came to know that the OP No.1 had repudiated the claim on the ground that insurance policy is in the name of M/s Fair Brothers and Registration Certificate is in the name of Jaspal Singh. From the very first day, it was in the knowledge of the OP No.1 that the registration certificate of the vehicle is in the name of the complainant, being the proprietor of the firm M/s Fair Brothers and the insurance policy was in the name of the complainant’s firm. Since, the firm of the complainant is proprietorship firm, thus both having the same identity. The sale certificate form No.21 was issued by OP No.2 in the name of the firm of the complainant, but due to technical reasons for getting the vehicle registered, in the name of the firm, the complainant was asked to get the invoice changed in his personal name showing the complainant as proprietor of the firm, which does not make any difference. Complainant approached the OP No.2 for getting his name entered in the invoice, showing the complainant as proprietor of the firm. The OP No.2, incorporated the name of the complainant in the invoice and same was submitted to the registration authority for registration. Complainant is a lawman and no one suggested him to get the name corrected in the insurance policy. Since, the complainant is the proprietor of the firm, therefore he is entitled to get the claim, but the OPs have wrongly repudiated his claim. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                 Upon notice, OP No.1, appeared through counsel and filed written version, raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability, time barred and cause of action. On merits, it is stated that the vehicle was insured with OP No.1 from 20.03.2014 to 19.03.2015 vide Insurance Policy No.110182/31/13/01/00001385. On 29.10.2014, the vehicle of the complainant met with an accident at Karnal, when the same was driven by Harpal Singh. After receiving the intimation regarding incident, Mr. R.P. Singh, surveyor was deputed to assess the loss, who prepared the report on the basis of actual & physical verification of the vehicle in question and assessed the Loss to the tune of Rs.1,66,123/-. The claim was repudiated by OP No.1 on the right ground that the vehicle was registered in the name of M/s Fair Brother Auto Sales and RC was in the name of Jaspal Singh. The vehicle was purchased in the name of M/s Fair Brother Auto Sales and by getting the RC registered on his name, complainant has played fraud. There is no question of deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1 and prayer has been made for dismissal of the present complaint with costs.                           

                    On 17.07.2019, the Ld. Counsel for the complainant, suffered a statement that he wants to give up OP No.2 from the array of the parties, accordingly the OP No.2 was given up from the arrays of the opposite parties, vide order dated 17.07.2019.

3.                 The ld. counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of Jaspal Singh, Prop. M/s Fair Brother Auto Sales Opp. Haryana Motor Market, G.T. Road, Ambala City (complainant) as Annexure CA alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-10 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for OP No.1 tendered affidavit of Shri Tajinder Singh, A.O., United India Insurance Company Limited and Shri R.P. Singh, Automobile Engineer-cum-Surveyor & Loss Assessor as Annexure OP-A and Annexure OP-B alongwith documents Annexure OP/1 to OP/15 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.1.

4.                We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and carefully gone through the case file.

5.                At the outset, the learned counsel for the OP No.1 has vehemently argued that this complaint is not only liable to be dismissed on the ground of limitation, but on merits also. The OP No.1 had intimation regarding the repudiation of the claim was given to the complainant vide letter dated 24.03.2016. As such the cause of action accrued to the complainant on dated 24.03.2016, but he filed the present complaint on 07.08.2018 i.e. after the expiry of limitation period of two years. Even otherwise, the policy in question was in the name of M/s Fair Brothers Auto Sales, which is a partnership firm and the RC is in the name of Jaspal Singh as such no claim is payable to the complainant and the insurance company has rightly repudiated the claim.

                   To this effect, the learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the OP No.1 has alleged that it had repudiated the claim on 03.11.2016 and information regarding the same was given to the complainant vide letter dated 24.03.2016. Whereas, the complainant has not received the said letter and the OP No.1 has not placed on record any document to show that vide which mode it had sent the letter to the complainant. Complainant for the first time came to know about the repudiation of the claim, on 01.08.2018, when he contacted his counsel. Application for condonation of delay has already been filed by the complainant and the same is still pending.  He further argued that earlier M/s Fair Brother Auto Sales was a partnership firm and after the death of the partner, it is a proprietorship firm. RC is in the name of the complainant and he being the proprietor of M/s Fair Brother Auto Sales is entitled to get the claim.

                   In the first instance, we will deal with the application for condonation of delay. The OP No.1 has pleaded that it had sent the repudiation letter on dated 24.03.2016, whereas the complainant has averred that he did not received the said letter. No proof regarding sending of the letter and receipt of the same by the complainant, has been placed on record by the OP No.1. Considering this fact and the reasons given by the applicant/complainant for condonation of delay, we condone the delay and the application is disposed of accordingly.

6.                Now, coming to the merits of the case. From the perusal of FORMVAT-G1, Annexure C-1, it is evident that the Fair Brothers Auto Sales is a proprietorship firm w.e.f. 20.09.2015. From the insurance policy Annexure C-7, it is evident that the policy in question was issued on 20.03.2014, i.e. prior to the issuance of the VAT certificate. From the Motor claim form Annexure OP-2, it is quite clear that the claim was filed by the complainant in the capacity of partner of M/s Fair Brothers Auto Sales. Thus, the contention of the complainant that he had lodged the claim with the insurance company in the capacity of proprietor of M/s Fair Brothers Auto Sales gets falsified. It may be stated here that for claiming any amount by the insured, it is required that the Registration Certificate and the insurance policy should be in the name of one and the same person only, which is not so in the present case. The Registration Certificate Annexure C-8 is in the name of Jaspal Singh, whereas the Insurance Policy Annexure C-7 is in the name of M/s Fair Brothers Auto Sales, as such complainant has no insurable interest. The complaint filed by the complainant is devoid of merits; consequently, we dismiss the same. The parties are left to bear their own costs. Certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced on : 08.04.2021.

 

          (Vinod Kumar Sharma)                      (Ruby Sharma)                (Neena Sandhu)

                Member                                              Member                                President

                                                                                                                  DCDRC, Ambala