BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.

                                                          Consumer Complaint no. 275 of 2011                                                                    

                                                          Date of Institution  :    12.12.2011

                                                          Date of  Decision    :    24.8.2016            

Sahab Ram son of Shri Bansi Lal, resident of village Ramgarh, tehsil Dabwali Distt. Sirsa.

            ….Complainant.                     

                   Versus

United India Insurance Company Ltd., Mandi Dabwali through  its Branch Manager.

                                                                             ..…Opposite party.

            Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.

Before:        SHRI S.B.LOHIA………………………………PRESIDENT

                    SHRI RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL…………MEMBER.        

Present:       Sh.A.K.Gupta,  Advocate for the complainant.

     Sh.S.K.Puri, Advocate  for the opposite party.

ORDER

                   Case of complainant, in brief, is that being registered owner of Sawraj Mazda Canter bearing registration no.HR-39A-0823, he got insured the vehicle  comprehensively from the op-company vide policy no.11190130P000598229      w. .e.f. 12.7.2010 to 11.7.2011. This policy also covered own damage risk against the IDV of Rs.2 lac. The vehicle in question met with an accident and claim was lodged with the Op-company on 23.12.2010. This claim was lodged by Baljeet Singh driver of the Canter. Op appointed Sh.Baldev Singh, surveyor to make the assessment of damage and all the papers for settlement of the claim were submitted to the opposite party. On 24.5.2011, complainant received a letter from Opposite party that Baljeet Singh disclosed himself as owner of the vehicle by producing some agreement. Thereafter, complainant through his affidavit dt. 15.6.2011 intimated the Op that he had not sold the Canter to said Baljeet Singh and he is a driver of the vehicle. It is alleged that complainant had taken a loan from Baljeet Singh against which some writing was made and the loan has already been cleared. It is further pleaded that an amount of Rs.1,60,000/- remained outstanding against Baljeet Singh and until and unless the loan is cleared alongwith the interest, the said Canter could not have been transferred and complainant is still its owner. Ops vide their letter 22.11.2011 repudiated the claim on the ground that the complainant has no insurable interest. Hence, this complaint.

2.                On notice, ops appeared and contested the case by filing written version. It is replied that firstly Baljeet Singh s/o Sh.Thane Singh claiming himself owner-cum-driver of the vehicle informed the Divisional Office, Abohar, but subsequently seller changed his statement and declared himself owner of the vehicle. Baljeet Singh preferred a claim disclosing himself as driver-cum-owner of the vehicle and also produced a copy of contract dt. 27.9.2010 scribed on non judicial paper with regard to handing over possession in lieu of payment and it was also mentioned that after clearance of loan the vehicle shall be transferred in the name of new owner.  RC in question was not transferred in the name of new owner. As such, the claimant Sahab Ram had no insurable interest in the vehicle in question at the time of alleged accident and his claim was rightly repudiated.  Ops further denied remaining contents of complaint.

3.                By way of evidence, the complainant produced affidavit Ex.C1, letter dt. 22.11.2011 Ex.C2, policy papers Ex.C3, letter dt. 24.5.2011 Ex.C4, copy of affidavit of complainant Ex.C5, permit Ex.C6 and copy of RC Ex.C7, whereas Ops produced affidavit of Branch Manager Ex.R1 and copy of policy Ex.R2.

4.                We have heard learned counsels for the parties and have gone through the record of the case carefully.

5.                The Ops repudiated the claim on the sole ground that complainant has no insurance interest in the said vehicle because prior to date of accident, he had sold the vehicle and handed over the possession. It is an admitted fact that vehicle has not been transferred in the relevant papers i.e. RC etc. till the date of alleged accident. From the perusal of various documents on the file i.e. insurance policy which is in the name of complainant Sahab Ram, affidavit Ex.C5, permit Ex.C6 and RC Ex.C7, it is clearly established on record that vehicle in question was under the ownership of complainant till the date of repudiation. Ld. counsel for the complainant  cited the case laws titled New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Bimla Devi and others, Vol.CLXXIX (2015-3) PLR, 429 and Pushpa @ Leela and others Vs. Shakuntala and others, 2011, Accident Compensation Report, 313 (S.C.). 

6.                    As a result of above discussion, we are of the considered view that Ops cannot deny the claim of the complainant only on the statement of driver Baljeet Singh. Accordingly, we accept the present complaint and Ops are directed to settle the claim of the complainant considering him owner of the insured vehicle within a period of two months from today. If any document for settlement of the claim is required then Ops can demand the same from the complainant through written letter. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules.  File be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced in open Forum.                                             President,

Dated:24.8.2016.                                Member.            District Consumer Disputes

                                                                                         Redressal Forum, Sirsa.