Haryana

Jind

115/14

Vishavveer Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

UIIC - Opp.Party(s)

Sh M.K Redhu

20 Oct 2015

ORDER

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JIND.

                                           Complaint No. 115 of 2014

   Date of Institution: 18.9.2014

   Date of final order: 20.10.2015

 

Vishv Veer Singh s/o Sh. Des Raj r/o village Karsindhu Tehsil Narwana, District Jind. 

                                                             ….Complainant.

                                       Versus

United India Insurance Company Ltd. through its Branch Manager, Branch office, Appollo Chowk, Dr. Singla wali gali, Narwana, Distridct Jind.  

                                                          …..Opposite party.

                          Complaint under section 12 of

 

Before: Smt. Bimla Sheokand, Presiding Member.

            Sh. Mahinder Kumar, Khurana, Member.

 

Present: Sh. R.C. Sharma, Adv. for complainant.

             Sh. Rajesh Jain, Adv. for  opposite party.

            

ORDER:

             The brief facts in the complaint are that complainant  is registered owner of Hyundai Varna Car bearing registration No.HR-32E-9090 and  the same was got insured for a sum of Rs.6,48,000/- vide policy No. 1119023113P101377909 with the opposite party valid  w.e.f. 6.6.2013 to 5.6.2014 and paid a sum of Rs.14,427/- as premium. Unfortunately the vehicle of the complainant met with an accident  on 27.7.2013 in the area of

                        Vishavveer Singh Vs. UIIC

                                       …2…

Baldev Nagar, Ambala City Model Town  and vehicle was damaged completely.  After the accident, the matter was reported immediately to the opposite party and opposite party appointed its surveyor who inspected/surveyed the damage vehicle. The complainant lodged the claim of his damaged vehicle with the opposite party immediately and submitted all the necessary documents. The opposite party has wrongly repudiated the lawful claim of the complainant vide letter dated 31.7.2014.  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  a sum of Rs.6,48,000/-  as cost of damaged car 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.     Upon notice, the opposite party has  put in appearance and filed  the written statement stating  in the  preliminary objections that the complainant has no cause of action and locus-standi to file the present complaint and the complaint is false and frivolous.  On merits, it is contended that the complainant himself stated during the investigation of the present claim that he has sold the vehicle much prior to the accident to Krishan Kumar S/o Sube Singh  and he has never signed affidavit No.13650 in the form of consent letter dated 12.2.2014 which means you have denied to lodge any claim with the opposite party.  The accident of the above said vehicle was occurred on 27.7.2013 and intimation was given to the opposite party on

                        Vishavveer Singh Vs. UIIC

                                       …3…

30.7.2013 after a delay of 3 days.  The complainant is entitled to a claim of Rs.4,99,000/- on the basis of net of salvage basis (total damage) if his case would have been found otherwise genuine and perfect in other respect. All the other allegations have been denied by the opposite party. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Dismissal of complaint with special cost is prayed for.

3.        In evidence the complainant has produced  his own affidavit Ex. C-1, copy of  document Ex. C-2,  copy of  identity card Ex. C-3,  copy of package policy Ex. C-4 and copy of letter dated 31.7.2014 Ex. C-5 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the opposite party has produced the  affidavit of Sh.  Hans Raj Kamboj, Sr. Divisional Manager Ex. OP-1,  C.D. Ex. OP-2, copy of consent letter Ex. OP-3,  copy of letter dated 7.5.2014 Ex. OP-4, copy of package policy Ex. OP-5, copy of final report form Ex. OP-6, copy of letter dated 31.7.2014 Ex. OP-7, copy of letter dated 7.5.2014 Ex. OP-8, copy of vehicle accident  intimation Ex. OP-9 and copy of no claim bonus certificate Ex. OP-10 and closed the evidence.

4.       We have heard the arguments of Ld. Counsel of both the parties and also perused the record placed on file.  Ld. Counsel of the complainant has argued that the car No. HR-32E-9090 of the complainant met with an accident on 27.7.2013 in Ambala City and was totally damaged. The said car was insured with the opposite party and premium paid by the complainant. The accident occurred during the insured period. The FIR was lodged immediately with the police authorities and also information given to the opposite party. On submission of the claim for getting the insured amount,

                             Vishavveer Singh Vs. UIIC

                                       …4…

the same was repudiated by the Insurance Company i.e. opposite party. On repudiation of the claim, the complainant filed the present complaint in this Forum.

5.       On the other hand,  Ld. Counsel of opposite party argued that the said car has been sold by the complainant which he has admitted before the surveyor/investigator of the Insurance Company. But he could not produce any documentary proof of the sale of the said car. The Ld. Counsel fo the opposite party also argued that the complainant has availed 20% No Claim Bonus fraudulently and that is also one of the reason of repudiation of claim as terms and conditions have been violated by the complainant. But the same has also not been proved by means of any document. The main emphasis   of the Ld. Counsel of opposite party was on recorded C.D. only and there is no other documentary proof about the sale of the said car.

6.       The Ld. Counsel of the complainant argued that the car  is in the name of the complainant till today and also the insurance is in the name of complainant, so there is no question of sale of car. He also argued that as the F.I.R. was lodged immediately with the police authority there is no delay in information to the opposite party as alleged. Moreover, the accidental vehicle has been taken on superdari by the complainant from the Hon’ble Court of ACJM, Ambala on being present in person in the  court and hence the complainant is the sole owner of the vehicle. The Ld. Counsel fo the complainant has quoted the case of  State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Haryana cited as UIIC Ltd. Vs. Satish Kumar in which the opposite party has failed to produce any relevant document to prove the allegations. Other case of NCDRC New Delhi IV (2012) CPJ 158 (NC),

                             Vishavveer Singh Vs. UIIC

                                       …5…

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Dharambir &another in which it is clearly mentioned that the owner is only that person in whose name, the vehicle is registered on the date of accident. Aslo in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & others The SCDRC Punjab has cleared that according to registration documents-complainant is the owner of the vehicle.

7.       After hearing Ld. Counsels of both the parties, in our view the Ld. Counsel of opposite party was not able to prove that the said car has been sold upto the date of accident. The repudiation of the claim of the complainant is not justified and hence the deficiency in service is established  on the part of the opposite party. The complaint is allowed and the complainant is entitled to get the insurance of the car  amounting to Rs.6,48,000/-. The opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.6,48,000/- to the  complainant. The complainant will hand over the scrap of the said var to the opposite party after making all formalities. The order be complianced with in one month after receiving the certified copy of the order. In case of failure, the opposite party will pay a simple interest @ 9% p.a. to the complainant w.e.f. filing of the complaint i.e. 18.9.2014 till its full realization of amount. Litigation fee amounting to Rs.2100/- is also to be paid to the complainant.  Copies of order be supplied to the parties under the rule. File be consigned to the record-room.

Announced on: 20.10.2015

                                                         Presiding, Member,

          Member                      District Consumer Disputes                                                          Redressal Forum, Jind

 

 

 

                Vishavveer Singh Vs. UIIC

                                      

Present: Sh. R.C. Sharma, Adv. for complainant.

             Sh. Rajesh Jain, Adv. for  opposite party.

            

             Arguments heard. To come up on 20.10.2015 for orders.

 

                                                                Presiding, Member

                                    Member                DCDRF, Jind

                                                                  16.10.2015

 

Present: Sh. R.C. Sharma, Adv. for complainant.

             Sh. Rajesh Jain, Adv. for  opposite party.

            

             Order announced, vide our separate order of even date. The complaint is allowed. File be consigned to record room. 

 

                                                                Presiding, Member

                                  Member                     DCDRF, Jind

                                                                  20.10.2015