< >....OPs
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Quorum: Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,
Smt Parampal Kaur, Member,
Sh P Singla, Member.
Present: Sh Anil Kumar Chawla, Ld Counsel for complainant,
Sh Ashok Kumar Monga, Ld Counsel for OPs.
(Ajit Aggarwal, President)
Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against United India Insurance Co/OPs seeking directions to them to make payment of insurance claim of Rs 1,77,740/-+Rs1,510/- and for further directing OPs to pay Rs 2,00,000/- mental tension, deficiency in service and harassment and Rs 20,000/- as litigation expenses.
2 Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant purchased a car from its previous owner J S Dhaliwal and got it transferred in his own name from DTO, Faridkot vide entry no. 15164 dt 24.12.2014. Said car was insured with OPs in the name of previous owner vide policy no, 2008003113P107086164 valid from 31.01.2014 to 30.01.2015 and as per terms and conditions of Insurance Policy, complainant was required to get transferred the insurance policy in his name within 15 days from the date of transfer of vehicle in his name in Registration Certificate and as such, complainant was at liberty to get the Policy transferred in his name uptill 8.01.2015, but unfortunately, said vehicle met with an accident and badly damaged on 30.12.2014 near Gandhi Palace, Moga Road, Bagha Purana. Complainant immediately informed OPs regarding it and OPs appointed Sh Gopal Kotia as Spot Surveyor, who made spot survey on 31.12.2014 and complainant paid Rs1510/-for this to him and he made detailed report about the vehicle to OPs. Thereafter, Er Ashok Kumar Bansal was appointed as Surveyor, who inspected the vehicle and directed complainant vide letter no250 dt 12.02.2015 to get the same repaired and to inform him immediately. At this complainant, got the vehicle repaired and informed Mr Ashok Bansal regarding repair, who inspected the vehicle many times during repairs and also took photographs of vehicle under repair. Complainant submitted his claim papers to OP-2 alongwith copy of RC, insurance policy and other requisite documents demanded by OP-2 and said Ashok Bansal asked complainant to submit remaining bills and accordingly, complainant submitted whole bills with Surveyor, who after inspecting the same made his detailed report and sent to OPs alongwith cancelled cheque of account of complainant, but despite repeated requests, complainant did not receive the claim amount. Thereafter, OPs vide letter dt 11.08.2015 declared the claim of complainant as ‘No Claim’ on vague plea that vehicle of complainant is still in the name of J S Dhaliwal, whereas complainant got it transferred in his name on 24.12.2014 from District Transport Office, Faridkot and copy of RC was also submitted to OPs. This act and conduct of Ops has caused harassment and mental tension to him, which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice, for which he has prayed seeking directions to OPs to pay Rs 2,00,000/- as compensation and Rs 20,000/- as litigation expenses incurred by him besides the main relief. Hence, the complaint.
3 The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 12.10.2015, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.
4 On receipt of the notice, OPs filed written statement taking preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as vehicle in question was not insured at the time of alleged loss and complainant is not insured with Ops, rather J S Dhaliwal is insured with OPs and thus, complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint. Moreover, complaint involves complicated questions of law and facts, which require thorough investigation and recording of evidence at length and same cannot be conducted in this Forum with limited jurisdiction. Complainant has concealed the material facts from this Forum and complaint is malafide and is filed only to harass and harm the answering OP and with malafide intentions to illegally extract public money from OP Insurance Company and as such, complaint is not maintainable in this Forum and is liable to be dismissed. It is asserted that one Dr J S Dhaliwal was the owner of vehicle and he purchased the policy no. 2008003113P107086164 dt 29.01.2014 with validity period from 31.01.2014 to 30.01.2015 and issued a cheque, which was dishonoured by the banker of insured on account of having insufficient funds on 30.01.2014 with remarks “Exceeds Arrangement” and in the light of terms and conditions of policy and provisions of Indian Insurance act, policy stood cancelled automatically and no liability attaches to OPs and due intimation regarding this was given to Dr J S Dhaliwal, who again purchased policy no. 2008003113P107500170 and got insured his vehicle no. CH-03W-3358 for the period from 13.02.2014 to 12.02.2015. It is further asserted that on intimation by complainant regarding accident, Mr Gopal Kotia was appointed as Surveyor, who conducted spot survey and submitted his report on 22.01.2015 and thereafter, Mr Ashok Bansal was appointed as independent Surveyor to carry out the final survey, but despite the instructions of Independent Surveyor, vehicle was not sent for repairs till 12.02.2015. Said Surveyor also sent written instructions to insured for starting the repairs. The repair was started on 19.02.2015, but same was on a very slow speed due to non supply of parts. On 24.05.2015, said Surveyor was informed about completion of repairs and thereafter, inspection was again carried out and detail Survey Report was submitted on 15.05.2015 and net liability was assessed at Rs 1,05,000/-and it was recommended by said Surveyor that insurance is in the name of Dr J S Dhaliwal and no insurable interest under the policy in question is in favour of complainant Adarash Chibber. It is also pertinent to mention that insured used the disposal (Old) parts to the maximum in the repair of damaged vehicle. Verification of vehicular document was available on 29.05.2015 and thereafter claim was processed and further placed before competent authority after thorough enquiry and investigation and competent authority filed the claim in question as ‘No Claim’ after due application of mind and that also on merits and intimation regarding it was duly conveyed to insured vide registered letter dt 20.07.2015 and to complainant vide letter dt 11.08.2015. thus, it is clear that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops and complaint is liable to be dismissed. Complainant has violated the terms and conditions of Policy. The insured has entered into a compromise with owner of offending vehicle without prior written consent of answering OPs and it is a clear cut violation of terms and conditions of Policy. As the policy was in the name of owner, therefore, complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint. However, on merits, OP has denied all the allegations levelled by complainant and reiterated that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party. The allegations with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer that complaint deserves to be dismissed with costs.
5 Parties were given proper opportunities to prove their respective case. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, and documents Ex C-2 to C-8 and then, closed his evidence.
6 In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the opposite party tendered in evidence, affidavit of Baldev Singh Divisional Manager as Ex OP-1 and documents Ex OP-2 to OP-15 and then, closed the evidence.
7 We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have very carefully gone through the affidavits and documents placed on the file.
8 The Ld Counsel for complainant vehementally argued that complainant purchased a car from one J S Dhaliwal and got it transferred in his own name from DTO, Faridkot vide entry no. 15164 dt 24.12.2014. Said car was insured with OPs in the name of previous owner vide policy valid from 31.01.2014 to 30.01.2015 and as per terms and conditions of Insurance Policy, complainant was to get transferred the same in his name within 15 days from the date of transfer of vehicle in his name in Registration Certificate and as such, complainant was at liberty to get the Policy transferred in his name uptill 8.01.2015, but meanwhile, said vehicle met with an accident on 30.12.2014 and got damaged. Complainant immediately informed OPs regarding it and OPs appointed Sh Gopal Kotia as Spot Surveyor, who made spot survey on 31.12.2014 and complainant paid Rs1510/-for this to him and he made detailed report about the vehicle to OPs. Thereafter, Ops appointed Er Ashok Kumar Bansal as Surveyor, who after inspection directed complainant vide letter dt 12.02.2015 to get the same repaired and to inform him immediately. At this complainant, got the vehicle repaired and informed Mr Ashok Bansal regarding said repair. He inspected the vehicle many times during repairs and also took photographs of vehicle under repair. Complainant submitted his claim papers to OP-2 alongwith copy of RC, insurance policy and other requisite documents demanded by OP-2 and on asking of said Ashok Bansal, complainant submitted all bills to him, who made detailed report and sent the report to OPs alongwith cancelled cheque of account of complainant, but despite repeated requests, complainant did not receive the claim amount. It is further contended that after that vide letter dt 11.08.2015, OPs declared his claim as ‘No Claim’ on plea that vehicle of complainant is still in the name of its previous owner/J S Dhaliwal, whereas complainant got it transferred in his name on 24.12.2014 from District Transport Office, Faridkot and copy of RC was also submitted to OPs. This act and conduct of Ops has caused harassment and mental tension to him. Complainant has stressed on documents Ex C-2, which is copy of insurance policy, letter Ex C-3, Ex C-4, which is copy of Registration cover of vehicle in question alongwith transfer entry made by DTO, Faridkot dt 24.12.2014 and Ex C-6 and 7 which are copies of letters dt 12.02.2015 and 1.05.2015 respectively. Complainant has prayed for accepting the present complaint and also prayed for compensations and litigation expenses.
9 To controvert the allegations levelled by complainant, ld counsel for Ops argued before the Forum that vehicle in question was not insured at the time of alleged accident and complainant is not insured with Ops, rather J S Dhaliwal is insured with OPs and thus, complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint. It is further averred that complainant has concealed the material facts from this Forum and complaint is malafide and is filed only to harass the Ops. It is asserted that Dr J S Dhaliwal was the owner of vehicle and he purchased the policy no. 2008003113P107086164 dt 29.01.2014 with validity period from 31.01.2014 to 30.01.2015 and issued a cheque, which was dishonoured by the banker of insured on account of having insufficient funds on 30.01.2014 with remarks “Exceeds Arrangement” and in the light of terms and conditions of policy and provisions of Indian Insurance act, policy stood cancelled automatically and no liability attaches to OPs and due intimation regarding cancellation of policy was given to Dr J S Dhaliwal, who again purchased policy no. 2008003113P107500170 and got insured his vehicle no. CH-03W-3358 for the period from 13.02.2014 to 12.02.2015. It is further asserted that on intimation by complainant regarding accident, Mr Gopal Kotia was appointed as Surveyor, who after spot survey, submitted his report on 22.01.2015 and thereafter, Mr Ashok Bansal was appointed as independent Surveyor to carry out the final survey, but despite the instructions of Independent Surveyor, vehicle was not sent for repairs till 12.02.2015. Said Surveyor also sent written instructions to insured for starting the repairs. The repair work started on 19.02.2015, but it was on a very slow speed due to non supply of parts. On 24.05.2015, complainant informed Surveyor about completion of repairs and thereafter, inspection was again carried out and detail Survey Report was submitted on 15.05.2015 and net liability for loss was assessed at Rs 1,05,000/-and it was recommended by said Surveyor that insurance is in the name of Dr J S Dhaliwal and no insurable interest under the policy in question is in favour of complainant Adarash Chibber. It is brought before the Forum that insured used the disposal (Old) parts to the maximum in the repair of damaged vehicle. Verification of vehicular document was available on 29.05.2015 and thereafter claim was processed and further placed before competent authority, who after thorough enquiry and investigation, filed the claim of complainant as ‘No Claim’ after due application of mind and also intimated regarding this to insured vide registered letter dt 20.07.2015 and to complainant vide letter dt 11.08.2015. It is reiterated that is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops and complaint is liable to be dismissed. Complainant has violated the terms and conditions of Policy. The insured has entered into a compromise with owner of offending vehicle without prior written consents of OPs and it is a clear cut violation of terms and conditions of Policy. As the policy was in the name of owner, therefore, complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint. Ld Counsel for Ops has prayed for dismissing the complaint.
10. We have heard the arguments of both the parties and also gone through the pleadings and evidence led by both the parties. The case of the complainant is that he purchase the vehicle in question from one J.S.Dhaliwal and got transferred in his name on 24.12.2014 from DTO, Faridkot. The vehicle was insured with OPs. The said vehicle met with an accident on 30.12.2014, he duly gave intimation to OPs who appointed the Surveyor to assess the loss of the vehicle but they wrongly and illegally repudiated the claim on the false ground that as J.S.Dhaliwal sold the vehicle to complainant, so he has no insurable interest in the vehicle. In reply the OPs admitted that the vehicle in question was insured with them and J.S.Dhaliwal was registered owner of the vehicle. They also admitted that the complainant gave intimation regarding accident to them, they appointed the surveyor to assess the loss to the vehicle but they argued that as original owner sold vehicle to the complainant and they gave no information regarding this sale to them and not got the policy transferred in the name of complainant within a stipulated period of 14 days as per General Regulations no.17 of Motor Vehicle Act, so there is no insurable interest in the vehicle either of J.S.Dhaliwal or complainant and they rightly repudiated the claim of the said vehicle. On it the counsel for the complainant argued that earlier J.S.Dhaliwal was owner of the vehicle who got insured the said vehicle with OPs, he purchased the said vehicle from said J.S.Dhaliwal along with all rights on the vehicle and the insurance policy is also automatically transferred in his favour and he has all insurable interest in the said vehicle. In his support he put reliance on the citation 2014 (3) Consumer Law Today, 63 Case titled as Mallamma (Dead) by LRS Vs National Insurance Company Ltd & Ors whereas our Hon’ble Apex Court held that Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, Section 157-Insurance Claim-Transfer of Ownership-Once the ownership of the vehicle is admittedly proved to have been transferred, the existing insurance policy in respect of the same vehicle will also be deemed to have been transferred to the new owner and the policy will not lapse even if the intimation as required under Section 103 of the Motor Vehicle Act is not given to the insurer.
He argued that in the light of above decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the insurance policy is also transferred in favour of the complainant along with ownership of the vehicle and the OPs cannot repudiate the claim on the ground that the insurance policy was not transferred. He further argued that if the plea of OPs admitted that as per Rules he had to get transfer the insurance policy in his favour within 14 days from the date of transfer of registration of the vehicle in his name as per General Regulations no.17 in that case also he got transferred the vehicle on 24.12.2014 in his name and same met with an accident on 30.12.2014 which is admitted by the OP-1 themselves in that case also the period of 14 days had not elapsed and vehicle met with an accident within the period of 14 days and OP-1 cannot reject his claim on this ground, on this point he put reliance on the citation 2014 (2) Consumer Law Today, 443, titled as Shish Pal Vs Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. & Others where Hon’ble Chandigarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh held that Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2 ( 1) (g) –Insurance Claim (Truck)-theft of vehicle-Change of ownership-Transfer of insurance policy-Claim repudiated-On the ground that the complainant had no insurable interest, in the truck, in question, at the time of theft and that the truck, already stood transferred/sold, in favour of the complainant, and no intimation, in respect of the same, had been given to insurance company, for transfer of the insurance policy, in his name-The truck was registered, in the name of complainant on 10.10.2011-According to the GR-17, the complainant, could intimate the insurer, within 14 days, from the date of registration of the truck, in this name-However before that time lapsed, in the meanwhile, the truck was stolen-Held- it could not be said that, on the date of theft of the truck, there was no insurable interest, or there was violation of GR17.
So, in these circumstances and in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court and State Commission, the OPs illegally and wrongly repudiate the claim, the vehicle in question and they are liable to pay the compensation for loss of the vehicle.
11. We have thoroughly gone through the evidence and case law produced by the complainant, if we admit the version of the OPs then also as per General Regulation no. 17, transferee should inform the insurer for getting transfer the insurance in his favour within 14 days from the date of registration of the vehicle in his name and in the present case, the complainant got transferred the vehicle in question in his name on 24.12.2014, as per copy of RC Ex C-4 and vehicle met with an accident on 30.12.2014 as also admitted by the OPs themselves so the period of 14 days has not yet was lapsed as per Regulations of the OPs, so they cannot deny the claim for the loss to the vehicle.
12. We are fully convinced with the arguments advanced by the Counsel for the complainant and case law produced by him and come to the conclusion that the OPs wrongly and illegally repudiate the claim to the vehicle of the complainant and the complainant is entitled for the payment of compensation for the loss of his vehicle.
11 In the light of above discussion, the present complaint is hereby partly allowed. The Ops are directed to pay Rs.105000/- as assessed by the Surveyor vide his Survey report Ex OP-8 for the loss to the vehicle of the complainant along with interest @ 12 % PA from 11.08.2015 when they repudiate the claim of complainant till final realization. The OPs are also burdened to pay Rs.3000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. Ops are directed to comply with the order within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order failing which complainant shall be entitled to initiate proceedings under Section 25 and 27 of Consumer Protection Act. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in Open Forum
Dated 27.04.2016
Member Member President
(P Singla) (Parampal Kaur) (Ajit Aggarwal)
