Delhi

East Delhi

CC/68/2014

JASBEER - Complainant(s)

Versus

United India Insurance Co. Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

04 Feb 2014

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI-92

CC No.68/2014:

In the Matter of:

Sh.Jasbir Singh

S/o. Sh. Jalbir Singh

R/o. Village Surakhpur,

P.O. CRPF Camp, Jharoda Kalan,

South – West, Delhi-110 072

            Complainant

Vs

 

1. M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

            (Delhi Regional Office - II)

(Through its Regional Manager/AR)

Scope Minar Complex, Core – IV, First Floor,

Laxmi Nagar, District Centre,

Delhi – 110 092

 

2. Sh. Param Jeet Singh

S/o. Sh. Jai Singh

R/o. 502, Village Katwera,

Delhi – 110 039

•  

     

                                                                                         Date of Admission -18/02/2014       

Date of Order          - 21/12/2015

O R D E R

Poonam Malhotra, Member :

The brief facts of the present complaint are that on 06/09/2013, the Indica Vista Car bearing Registration No. UP-17 T-2910 which was used by the complainant  as a taxi caught fire near Jharoti while he was going towards Sonepat, Haryana and was burnt completely. The said vehicle was insured with the respondent vide Policy No.2215003112P300984494 for the period from 31/10/2012 to 30/10/2013.  It is alleged that the Fire Station, Sonepat and the complainant were duly informed by Sh. Paramjeet Singh, the driver of the vehicle, about the incident and under the instructions of the complainant the driver is alleged to have informed the Police vide DD No.13 dated 07/09/2013 about the incident.  The driver of the vehicle was holding a valid driving licence at the time of the incident.  Claim lodged by the complainant was repudiated by the respondent vide its letter dated 20/12/2013 on the ground that the Respondent No.II herein, who is the owner of the vehicle is not its Registered Owner.  The complainant has vehementlydenied the fact of sale of said vehicle to anyone.  The complainant has prayed for directions to the Respondent No.Ifor payment of Rs.3,47,000/-towards the cost of the vehicle.  He has also prayed for directions to the Respondent No.Ito pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for harassment &mental agony, Rs.10,000/- as conveyance expenses, Rs.25,000/- as the litigation cost, interest, etc.

In response to the notices issued to the respondents, reply filed by the Insurance Company, the Respondent No.I herein, wherein while admitting the fact of issuance of the insurance policy to the complainant it has raised the pleas of want of jurisdiction to this Forum to entertain the present complaint and lack of locus standi to the complainant to file the present complaint before this Forum.  It is also alleged that the present complaint is not maintainable as the vehicle in question was being used for commercial purpose.  It is further alleged that the complainant has no insurable interest in the vehicle as he had sold the same to the Respondent No.II and the Respondent No.II was the owner of the vehicle as on the date of occurrence of the incident.  It is alleged that the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands.  The complainant and the Respondent No.II have colluded with each other to abuse the process of law.   The Surveyor Report was submitted by the surveyor on 10/10/2013 and the claim of the complainant was repudiated vide its letter dated 20/12/2013 on the ground that as on the date of occurrence of the incident the complainant was not the owner of the vehicle.   Rest all of the allegations have been denied.

Neither rejoinder to the written statement of Respondent No.I to rebut the contentions raised by it nor affidavit in evidence to reaffirm on oath the allegations raised by himin his complaint.  Only affidavit in evidence filed by the Respondent No.I in support of its case and NOC-cum-Affidavit filed by Respondent No.II.

Heard and perused the record.

The question that arises for adjudication in this complaint is whether the complainant had insurable interest in the vehicle in question as on the date of occurrence of the loss so as to be entitled to the claim for the reimbursement of the sum insured under the insurance policy?  On an indepth perusal of the record, it is evident from the copies of the Form of Certificate of Registration & the Tourist Permit issued by the Registering Authorities (Motors), Baghpat & the Transport Department, Uttar Pradesh respectively in respect of said vehicle, filed on record as Papers 10 & 14 of the complaint that the registration of the Indica Vista car bearing Registration Number UP-17 T-2910 stood in the name of the complainant as on the date of loss of the vehicle i.e., 06/09/2013. It is also clear from the copy of the Certificate of Insurance filed on record as Paper 11 of the complaint that the said car was insured with the Respondent No.I for the period from 31/10/2012 to 30/10/2013.  The Respondent No.I has repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that as on the date of occurrence of loss the complainant was not the owner of the said vehicle as he had sold out the same to Respondent No.II though the Registration Certificate had not been transferred in the latter’s name and this fact has been confirmed by the Respondent No.II in his Loss Intimation Letter to it and the statement given by him to the Surveyor appointed by the Respondent No.I for assessing the said claim and also in the Police Report lodged by the Respondent No.II. It is a cardinal principle of law that one who raises an allegation has to prove it beyond doubt.  It was obligatory on the complainant to rebut the contention of Respondent No.Iwith cogent documentary evidence that as on the date of loss he was not the owner of the vehicle and he had no insurable interest in it though the Registration Certificate and Certificate of Insurance stood in his name.  It is pertinent to mention here that on admission of a complaint, it is proceeded as per the provisions contained in Section 13 of the The Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The proceedings under the The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 are summary in nature which are decided on the basis of evidence filed by the parties on affidavit. In the present case, neither the complainant has filed any rejoinder to the written statement of Respondent No.I in rebuttal to the contentions raised by it in its written statement nor has he  filed any affidavit in evidence to reaffirm on oath the allegations raised by him in his complaint.As such the allegations made by the complainant in the present complaint being not supported by evidence cannot be believed.  Further, the Respondent No.I has filed its affidavit in evidence to reaffirm on oath the contentions raised by it in its written statement which have not been refuted by the complainant.It is significant to mention here that the Surveyor Report, filed on record as Annexure D to the written statement,which is a crucial document and an integral part of the pleadings of Respondent No.I, has also not been refuted by the complainant.  In these circumstances, an adverse presumption shall be drawn against the complainant that he has accepted the Surveyor Report.Further, it is evident from the copies of the Police DD Report dated 07/09/2013 filed on record by the Respondent No.I as Annexure-A to its written statement and exhibited as Exhibit RW1/A with its affidavit in evidence that the Respondent No.II had purchased the said vehicle from the complainant. Further, with regard to the issuance of the receipt of Rs.1,000/- by the Municipal Council, Sonepat towards the charges for sending the Fire Brigade in the name of the complainant and the alleged copy of the Fire Report filed on record by the Respondent No.II alongwith his NOC-cum-Affidavit, it is pertinent to mention here that the Municipal Council, Sonepat had issued the receipt as per the Registration Certificate & Insurance Policy held by the person driving the vehicle at the time of occurrence of loss.  Since neither the Registration Certificate nor the Insurance Policy had been transferred to the name of Respondent No.II, despite sale of vehicle the said documents continued to be in the name of the complainant, the previous owner of the vehicle. The Respondent No.II has relied on the statement mentioned in the said Fire Report that the owner of the vehicle is Jasbir Singh/Complainant and it was driven by Paramjeet Singh/Respondent No.II. It is pertinent to mention here that the said facts had been entered into the Fire Report after referring to the Registration Certificate & the Insurance Policy of the vehicle which was shown to the Fire Officials by the Respondent No.II on the spot and in accordance with it the Fire Report recorded. Further, the copy of the Fire Report filed on record by the Respondent No.II neither does it reflect the number at which the Fire Report was entered in the Roznamcha/ Daily Diary of the Sonepat Fire Station nor is it signed by the Fire Station Officer of Sonepat Fire Station.  It also does not bear the seal of the issuing office.  It is also not the case of the Respondent No.II that the said document does not require signature as it is a computer generated document.  In these circumstances, the pleas taken by the complainant and Respondent No.II are not tenable.  Even without prejudice to the rights of the Respondent No.I, if we presume that the Respondent No.II was only the driver of the vehicle and the complainant was the actual owner of the vehicle as on the date of loss then in that case the Respondent No.II had no authority to give the NOC for the release of the claim to Sh. Jasbir Singh. The factum of NOC being given by the Respondent No.II in favour of the complainant itself narrates the entire story of collusion between the complainant and the Respondent No.II to abuse the process of law to make out illegal gains by getting the insurance claim to which he is otherwise not entitled to as on the date of occurrence of loss the complainant was not the owner of the said vehicle and had no insurable interest in it.  There is not a scintilla of doubt that the Respondent No.II has filed a false affidavit on record to mislead this Forum from arriving at a fair and just decision and for unjust enrichment.This leaves no room for doubt that the complainant had no insurable interest in the said vehicle as on the date of loss of the vehicle i.e., 06/09/2013 andthere was no privity of contract between the complainant and the Respondent No.I as on the date of loss vis-a-vis the vehicle in question as he had already sold out the said vehicle to the Respondent No.II prior to the occurrence of the loss.  The complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint.  He cannot, thus, be said to be a Consumer vis-a-vis the Respondent No.I under the The Consumer Protection Act. The repudiation of the claim of the complainant by the Respondent No.I cannot be said to be unjustified.

 

Taking into consideration the detailed discussion and observations made supra,we do not find any merit in the present complaint. It is frivolous, vexatious and deserves to be dismissed as the complainant has endeavoured to misguide this Forum by abusing the process of law for unjust enrichment.  The complainant in collusion with Respondent No.II cannot be allowed to swindle the public money by endeavouring to delude the Respondent No.I. The complaint is accordingly dismissed with punitive cost of Rs.10,000/- under Section 26 of the The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 payable by the complainant to Respondent No.Iwithin 45 days from the date of this order in order to deter the filing of frivolous and vexatious complaints and its receipt be filed on record. In case the complainant fails to comply with the order it shall be recovered from him through the process of law.

 

Copies of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

 

(Dr. P.N. Tiwari)                               (Poonam Malhotra)                                       (N.A.Zaidi)

Member                                                       Member                                                           President