Haryana

Jind

CC/15/125

Tarun Kumar Jangra - Complainant(s)

Versus

UIIC - Opp.Party(s)

Sh Rakesh Kumar Jangra

27 Jul 2016

ORDER

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JIND.
                            Complaint No. 118 of 2012
                            Date of institution:-7.9.2015
                            Date of decision:- 17.8.2016
Tarun Kumar Jangra s/o Sh. Devender Kumar r/o R-90 Model Town Narwana, Tehsil Narwana, District Jind.

                                       ...Complainant.
Versus
United India Insurance Company Limited, Narwana District Jind through its Branch Manager of Narwana Branch.
                                          …Opposite party.
Complaint under section 12 of
                Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Before: Sh. Dina Nath Arora, President.    
            Smt. Bimla Sheokand, Member.
            Sh. Mahinder Kumar Khurana, Member.
            
Present:-    Sh. R.K. Jangra Adv. for complainant. 
        Sh. Satish Bhardwaj, Adv.for opposite party. 
            
Order:-
        In nutshell, the facts of the complaint are that the complainant had insured his Maruti Suzuki Swift Car bearing registration No.HR-10-T-3699 and the same was got insured  for a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- vide policy No.11190231114P102642101 dated 16.7.2014 with the opposite party. The complainant had purchased the above said vehicle from Sh. Rajat Batra s/o Sh. Ramesh Kumar r/o Sonipat on 7.7.2014 and he has got the affidavit and other requisite 
            Tarun Kumar Vs. UIIC
                    …2…
documents for transfer the vehicle in his favour. The opposite party told to him that after transfer of said vehicle in your name, the insurance policy will be transferred in your name. During insurance policy the car met with an accident on 25.8.2014 near village Batta, Distridct Kaithal. The complainant informed the opposite party regarding the accident immediately and submitted all the necessary documents. The ownership of above said vehicle was transferred in his name on 29.8.2014 and after that he has filed request before opposite party on 1.9.2014 for transfer the insurance policy in his name. The complainant served a legal notice dated 6.7.2015 through his counsel upon the opposite party but all in vain. The car was got repaired from Eakansh Motors Pvt. Ltd. Kaithal. The opposite party did not settle nor give the insurance claim by leveling false allegations that the above vehicle was not transferred in the name of complainant on the date of accident.  Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party is alleged. It is prayed that the complaint be accepted and opposite party be directed to pay the insured  claim amount  as well as to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation on account of mental pain and agony to the complainant. 
2.    Pursuant to notice, the opposite party appeared and filed the written reply agitating that the complainant has got no cause of action and locus-standi  to file the present complaint and the complaint is not maintainable in the present forum. On merits, it is contended that after receiving the intimation regarding the vehicle of complainant, the opposite party deputed Sh. A.P. Chawla an independent and Govt. 
            Tarun Kumar Vs. UIIC
                    …3…
approved surveyor. The surveyor visited the shop of M/s Eakansh Motor Pvt. Ltd. Kaithal on 28.8.2014 and damaged vehicle was thoroughly inspected and all the visible damages were noted down  and he also took some photographs and assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.1,08,000/- subject to approval  of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. After receipt of report dated 9.2.2015 Sh. A.P. Chawla, it was observed that the insured vehicle has been sold by Rajat Batra to the complainant on 7.7.2014, whereas RC was transferred on 11.8.2014 and the loss occurred on 25.8.2014 and intimation of the loss was received on 27.8.2014. The insurance company was informed about the transfer on 1.9.2014. At the time of loss i.e. 25.8.2014 the previous owner was not the registered owner of the vehicle but simultaneously at that time there was no privacy of contract between the transferee and the insurance company. The vehicle was transferred by the transferee on 7.7.2014 but neither the RC was got transferred in the name of transferee within in the prescribed period of 30 days as per Section 50 of the M.V. Act. The insurance company has also not been intimated within 14 days of the transfer i.e. from 7.7.2014. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the  opposite party. Dismissal of complaint with special compensatory cost Rs.25,000/-  is prayed for.  
3.    In evidence, the complainant has  produced  his own affidavit Annexure C-1, copy of package policy Annexure C-2, copy of RC Annexure C-3, copy of service estimate Annexure C-4, copies of letter dated 1.9.2014 Annexure C-5 and Annexure C-6, copy of proposal 
            Tarun Kumar Vs. UIIC
                    …4…
form Annexure C-7, copy of reply of letter dated 24.4.2015 Annexure C-8, registered notice dated 6.7.2015 Annexure C-9 and postal receipt Annexure C-10 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the opposite party has produced the affidavit of Sh. Hans Raj Kamboj, Sr. Divisional Manager Annexure OP-1, affidavit of Sh. A.P. Chawla, Survyor and Loss assessor Annexure OP-2, copy of  registered notice dated 6.7.2015 Annexure OP-3, copy of letter dated 29.5.2015 Annexure OP-4, copy of letter dated 1.9.2014 Annexure OP-5, copy of letter dated 9.2.2015 Annexure OP-6, copy of motor survey report dated 9.2.2015 Annexure OP-7, copy of proposal form Annexure OP-8, copy of package policy Annexure OP-9, copy of letter dated 1.9.2014 Annexure OP-10, copy of intimation of loss Annexure OP-11 and  copy of motor claim form Annexure OP-12 and closed the evidence.  
4.    We have heard Ld. counsel of both the parties and also perused the record placed on file. Counsel for complainant argued that vehicle in question was insured on 16.7.2014 and the  complainant has purchased the insured vehicle on 7.7.2014 and  he has submitted the required documents to the opposite party for transfer of insurance in his name but the opposite party has told to the complainant that after transfer of the vehicle insurance policy will be transferred in your name accordingly. The opposite party has insured the above said vehicle on 16.7.2014 but policy was issued in the previous owner Rajat Batra. Meanwhile the vehicle in question met with an accident on 25.8.2014 and complainant intimated to the opposite party regarding the accident. The above said vehicle was got repaired  from 
            Tarun Kumar Vs. UIIC
                    …5…
Ekansh motor, Kaithal and spent a sum of Rs.1,71,792.37P but surveyor has assessed Rs.1,08,000/-  He further argued that vehicle in question was transferred in the name of complainant 20.8.2014 instead of 29.8.2014 and informed to the opposite party for transfer of the insurance policy in his name on 1.9.2014 within 14 days of transfer as required under Section 157 of Motor Vehicle Act in this way the claim of complainant has wrongly been repudiated on the ground that the complainant has no insurable interest and prayed for allow the complaint.
5.    On the other hand, counsel for opposite party argued that the claim of the complainant has rightly been repudiated on the ground that the complainant has no insurable interest at the time of accident i.e. on 25.8.2014 the complainant was not owner of the vehicle in question. Because the complainant has purchased the vehicle on 7.7.2014 and complainant has not transferred the vehicle in his name within 30 days from the date of purchase and intimation was given after period of 14 days, in this way the complainant has not complied the Section 50 of the Motor Vehicle Act and prayed for dismissal of complaint. 
6.    The foremost question involved in this case whether the complainant is entitled the repaired amount of vehicle or not? We have gone through the record, the vehicle in question was transferred as per registration certificate Annexure C-3 on 20.8.2014 and intimation was given to the insurance company about the transfer of vehicle on 1.9.2014 there is no violation of Section 50 and 157 of Motor Vehicle 
            Tarun Kumar Vs. UIIC
                    …6…
Act and intimation was given in time. Section 50 and 157 of Motor Vehicle Act reproduced as under:-
Section 50(b)
“the transferee shall, within thirty days of the transfer, report the transfer to the registering authority within whose jurisdiction he has the residence or place of business where the vehicle is normally kept, as the case may be, and shall forward the certificate of registration to that registering authority together with the prescribed fee and a copy of the report received by him from the transferor in order that particulars of the transfer of ownership may be entered in the certificate of registration.”
Section:157
Where a person is whose favour the certificate of insurance has been issued in accordance with the provision of this chapter transfers to another person th ownership of the motor vehicle in respect of which such insurance was taken together with the policy of insurance relating thereto, the certificate of insurance and the policy described in the certificate shall be deemed to have been transferred in favour of the person to whom the motor vehicle is transferred with effect from the date of its transfer.
[Explanation-For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that such deemed transfer shall include transfer of rights and liabilities of the said certificate of insurance and policy of insurance]
(2) The transferee shall apply within fourteen days from the date of transfer in the prescribed form to the insurer for making 
            Tarun Kumar Vs. UIIC
                    …7…
necessary changes in regard to the fact of transfer in the certificate of insurance and the policy described in the certificate in his favour and the insurer shall make the necessary changes in the certificate and the policy of insurance in regard to the transfer of insurance. 
7.    In view of the above said Section the complainant has given the intimation to the opposite party in time for transfer of the insurance policy as per letter Annexure OP-5 received by the company. So claim under policy has wrongly been repudiated by the opposite party. However, the surveyor has assessed the loss  to the tune of Rs.1,08,000/- subject to approval of the  company and give the comments as under:- 
“After gone through the documents and physically inspection the vehicle, it was observed that the said vehicle met with an accident on 25.8.2014 and driven by purchaser Mr. Tarun Kumar Jangra. Now he produced the photocopy of transfer R.C. and after gone through the same it was observed that it was transferred in his name on 20.8.2014 i.e. just 5 days ago on the date of accident. It is an close proximately case. You are requested to verify the date of transfer for insurable interest. You are requested to pl. look into the matter before settling the claim Its for your kind information please.” 
However, the complainant claim the amount of Rs.1,71,792.37P       but he has  incurred the amount as Rs.1,33,600/- for the repair of his vehicle from authorized service station of the company Ex. C-4 page 4. This point has not been rebutted by Ld. counsel of opposite praty. 
            Tarun Kumar Vs. UIIC
                    …8…
We have gone through the report of the surveyor and found that some items has been wrongly deducted. 
8.    In view of the above discussion, it is clear that the complainant has timely intimated to the company regarding accident as well as transfer of the insurance policy. So complinant having insurable interest in the vehicle in question.  Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party is established. Hence, the complaint is allowed with cost and opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,33,600/-(Rs. one lac thirty three thousand and six hundred only) to the complainant within 30 days from receiving certified copy of this order, failing which the opposite party will pay a simple interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 7.9.2015 till its  realization.  We assessed Rs.3300/-( Rs. three thousand and three hundred only) as litigation expenses to the complainant.  Copies of order be supplied to the parties under the rule. File be consigned to the record-room after due compliance.
Announced on: 17.8.2016
                                              President,
       Member       Member                 District Consumer Disputes                                          Redressal Forum, Jind

 

 

                            Tarun Kumar Vs. UIIC
                    
                
Present:-    Sh. R.K. Jangra Adv. for complainant. 
        Sh. Satish Bhardwaj, Adv.for opposite party. 

                 Arguments heard.  To come up on  17.8.2016 for orders.

                                       President,
            Member            Member                     DCDRF,Jind
                                        10.8.2016

Present:-    Sh. R.K. Jangra Adv. for complainant. 
        Sh. Satish Bhardwaj, Adv.for opposite party. 

        Order announced. Vide our separate order of the even date, the complaint is allowed. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance. 
                                                                                               President,
            Member            Member                     DCDRF,Jind
                                       17.8.2016

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OFFICE OF THE DISTRICCONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JIND. 

To
                 The Executive Engineer,
PWD B&R
Jind

Subject:         Reservation of  VIP suite.

Sir,
            It is brought to you kind notice that the under signed has joined as president District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jind. You are therefore, requested to reserve one VIP suite for two days i.e. 22.6.2016  and 23.6.2016 the confirmation slip may please be issued to the bearer of this letter.
            Thanking You

                                           
                                                                              President 
                                      District Consumer Disputes 
                                           Redressal Forum, Jind