DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No. 136 of 5.4.2016
Decided on: 27.7.2017
Narinder Singh S/o Sh.Harbans Singh R/o Village Devi Nagar, Rajpura, District Patiala.
…………...Complainant
Versus
1. United India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, Bye Pass, Patiala Road, Samana, District Patiala, through its Branch Manager.
2. United India Insurance Company Limited, Regd. & Head Office, 24, Whites Road, Chennai, through its Managing Director.
…………Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Neena Sandhu, President
Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member
ARGUED BY:
Sh.Vikash Sammi,Advocate,counsel for the complainant.
Sh.B.S.Sodhi,Advocate, counsel for Opposite parties.
ORDER
SMT.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT
Sh.Narinder Singh, 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 the O.Ps.) praying for the following reliefs:-
- To pay the insurance claim of Rs.2,90,000/- alongwith interest @ 24% per annum from the date of accident till its realization;
- To pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment ;
- To pay Rs.15,000/- as litigation expenses
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is the owner of Mohindra Bolero Camper Model:2008 bearing Registration No.HR-68-8767, chassis No.83F59547, engine No.GG84F90043, which, he purchased from its registered owner Vidhata Contractors & Builders Pvt. Ltd.,Panchkula vide affidavit and the agreement having executed between them. He got the said vehicle insured from OP no.1 on 9.8.2014 for the period from 9.8.2014 to 8.8.2015, vide policy bearing No.1117043114P103365138,issued in his name. The value of the vehicle was evaluated as Rs.2,90,000/- by the insurance company. Unfortunately, the vehicle alongwith its documents was stolen by the strangers at Karnal. He lodged the FIR No.785 dated 29.9.2014 Under Section 379 IPC with P.S.Civil Lines, Karnal.The police of P.S.Civil Linies, Karnal after tried their best in locating the vehicle, did not succeed and submit the untraced report before the Hon’ble Court of CJM, Karnal on 26.6.2015. He got served a legal notice upon the OPs on 14.8.2015. The OPs sent the reply dated 24.9.2015 to the legal notice, having admitted the insurance of the vehicle.Thereafter, he made several visits to the OPs for the payment of the claim amount but they refused to pay the claim amount on the ground that the vehicle was not permanently registered at the relevant time and the RC of the vehicle was also mandatory as per law. Thus, there is clear cut deficiency of service on their part, which caused mental agony and physical harassment to him.
3. On being put to notice, OPs appeared and filed the written version stating therein that the complainant has not attach copy of RC of the vehicle in question, affidavit and the agreement as alleged by him in his complaint. It is further stated that after verification from the office of Registering Authority, the insurance company came to know that the said vehicle was registered in the name of Vidhata Contractors. I t is admitted that the said vehicle was insured by them for the period from 9.8.2014 to 8.8.2015 vide insurance policy No.1117043114P103365138,in the name of the complainant. It is further admitted that as per copy of FIR No.785 dated 29.9.2014, the alleged vehicle was stolen from the custody of the complainant, who has no insurable interest with the vehicle. However, the claim was submitted with a delay of 28 days, after the incidence, which had to be submitted immediately as per condition no.1 of the policy. The claim of the complainant was repudiated vide letter dated 24.9.2015 and the information of the same was given to the complainant. There is no deficiency of service on their part. After denying all other averments made in the complaint, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.
4. On being called to do so, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.CA alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C7 and closed the evidence.
5. The ld. counsel for the OPs has tendered in evidence affidavit of Smt.Meena Kumari, Sr.Branch Manager, UIIC, Samana,Ex.OPA alongwith documents Exs.OP1 to OP8 ad closed the evidence.
6. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties, gone through the written arguments filed by the ld.counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
7. At the out set, the ld. counsel for the OPs has argued that since RC of the vehicle was in the name of M/s Vedanta Contractor Builders Pvt. Ltd. and the insurance is in the name of Narinder Singh i.e. complainant, therefore, he has no insurance interest in the vehicle. Even there was delay of 28 days in intimating the insurance company about the theft of the said vehicle.Therefore, the Ops have rightly repudiated the claim
8. On the contrary, the ld. counsel for the complainant has submitted that the complainant purchased the vehicle having registration No.HR-68-8767 from Vidhata Contractors & Builders Pvt. Ltd., Panchkula, as such he is the owner of the said vehicle. He got insured the said vehicle from the OP , in his name, on 9.8.2014 valid up to 8.8.2015 having IDV of Rs.2,90,000/-. On 29.9.2014, the said vehicle was stolen alongwith documents, he accordingly lodged the FIR with the police and also intimated the OP immediately. Even then the Ops illegally refused to pay the claim amount on the flimsy grounds .
9. The plea of the OPs is that there is delay of 28 days in intimating the OPs regarding theft of the vehicle in question. However, no document has been placed on record by the OPs, to show as to on which date, the complainant had intimated the OPs about the theft of the vehicle in question and how they have calculated the delay of 28 days of intimation. Thus, in the absence of any documentary evidence, this plea of the OPs is baseless and cannot be taken into consideration. From the copy of certificate of insurance, Ex.C1, it is evident that the vehicle having registration No.HR-68-8767 was duly insured in the name of Sh.Narinder Singh, i.e. the complainant for the period from 9.8.2014 to 8.8.2015. It may be stated that once the insurance company has issued an insurance policy with regard to the vehicle in question , in the name of the complainant then it had a privity of contract with the complainant .Since the vehicle in question was stolen during the subsistence of the policy in question, therefore, we are of the view that the OPs were not justified in refusing to pay the due claim amount to the complainant. In the case of Aroma Paints Ltd. and Other Vs. The New India Assurance Co.Ltd. & Ors. 2013(4)CLT 28 (NC) , the Hon’ble National Commission has held that if the complainant did not have the registration number he is liable to be punished under Section 192 of M. V. Act but insurance claim cannot be repudiated for that contravention. The insurance company does not enjoy the powers of traffic police and the court, it does not give any power to press this section into service while dismissing the insurance claim. It was further held that not obtaining registration number is mere negligence and in-action on the part of the complainant but has no effect upon the insurance claim before insurance company. Negligence cannot be equated with mens-rea. Insurance company not effected by said negligence of the complainant and Hon’ble National Commission has held that complainant is entitled for claim only after he produces original R.C and is not entitled to get any interest or compensation .” In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission in the case Aroma Paints Ltd. and Other Vs. The New India Assurance Co.Ltd. & Ors.(supra), we hold that the insurance company was not right in repudiating the claim and is liable to pay the claim amount to the complainant as per the IDV of the vehicle in question, on production of original Registration Certificate by the complainant and also on completion of other formalities, if any.
9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we partly allow the complaint and direct the Ops to pay the Insured Declared Value of the car in question, on production of original Registration Certificate by the complainant, within 60 days from the date of the receipt of the original R.C. from the complainant. The parties are left to bear their own costs. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.
ANNOUNCED
DATED:27.7. 2017
NEENA SANDHU
PRESIDENT
NEELAM GUPTA
MEMBER
