Haryana

StateCommission

A/690/2015

RAMESHKAUSHIK - Complainant(s)

Versus

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. - Opp.Party(s)

S.S.DUHAN

16 Nov 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

         

                                                         First Appeal No.690 of 2014 5

Date of Institution: 24.08.2015

                                                               Date of Decision: 16.11.2015

 

Ramesh Kaushik S/o Sh.Tek Ram R/o H.No.703/26 near railway Fatak, Ajmer Basti, Bhiwani Road, Jind, Tehsil and District Jind.

…..Appellant

Versus

 

1.United India Insurance Company Ltd. through its Branch Manager, Branch Office, Jind.

2.M/s Malwa Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. Plot No.23, Sector 25 Phase-I Panipat through its partner.

3.Tata Motors Finance Ltd. Branch at Jind through its Branch Manager.

                                      …..Respondents

 

CORAM:             Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Presiding Judicial Member.

                             Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                                                                                                                        

Present:              Shri S.S.Duhan, Advocate counsel for the appellant.

 

                                                   O R D E R

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

It was alleged by the complainant that he was partner of Parakh Cassette Industry and purchased vehicle with temporary registration No.HR 99 HB (TP 5070) from opposite party (O.P.No.2.) in the name of aforesaid firm and was insured by O.P.No.1.  it was told by O.P.No.3 that due to some technical problems loan could not be sanctioned in the name of the firm that is why he submitted the documents in personal capacity. Thereafter he got his name changed in the bills from O.P.No.2.  An agent of O.P.No.1 was also  present at that time and requested him to change his name in the cover note of insurance policy. He paid cover note transfer charges to the agent at that time.  He assured that cover note would be transferred in his name.  During the intervening night of 21/22.07.2011 car was stolen and the matter was reported to police station (P.S.) city Jind, on the basis of which FIR No.48 was registered.  Information was also sent to O.P.No.1 to 3.  His claim was repudiated by O.P.No.1 on the ground that the policy was transferred in his name on 01.08.2011. 
Ultimately O.P.No.1 repudiated his claim on the ground that he was not insured.

2.      O.P.No.1 filed reply controverting his averments and alleged that the car was purchased in the name of Parakh Cassette Industry on 07.05.2011 and insurance was also issued in the name of that firm.   On the date of theft i.e. 22.07.2011 complainant was not owner of the vehicle. He gave information about theft on 03.08.2011 after 12 days of theft. The policy was transferred in the name of complainant on 01.08.2011 and he was not having any insurable interest on the date of theft. So his claim was rightly repudiated.

3.      Respondent No.2 was only concerned about purchase of vehicle and challenge of name in the bill etc.

4.      After hearing both the parties the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jind, dismissed the complaint vide impugned order dated 20.07.2015 which is as under

In the case of Narender Singh Vs. New India Insurance company Ltd. and others 2014 (4) RCR (Civil) 272 (S.C.). The temporary registration expired on 11.01.2006 Accident took place 2.2.2006 when the vehicle was without any registrationthe Honble Apex Court has held that Insurance Company not liable.  The instant case is fully covered by the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court.

In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the opposite parties have rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant.  No deficiency in service is established on the part of opposite parties.

5.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom complainant-appellant has preferred this appeal.

6.      Arguments heard. File perused.

7.      Learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that when  there was some technical problem in sanctioning loan, he approached O.P.No.2 to mention his name in the bills as mentioned above.  At that time agent of O.P.No.1 was also present and he paid transfer fee to him to change insurance policy in his name.  The insurance company changed the name on 01.08.2011.  When he had already paid amount to the agent of insurance company for change of name he was having insurable interest in the car and is entitled for compensation.

8.      This argument is devoid of any force.  From the perusal of impugned order and copy of document Ex.C7 supplied by the complainant, it is clear that he deposited cheque for transfer on 01.08.2011, whereas theft had already taken place on 22.07.2011. For change of name Rs.55 were paid by the complainant on 01.08.2011 through cheque.  When the cheque was dated 01.08.2011 how it can be presumed that he handed over amount to the agent of O.P.No.1 in the office of O.P.No.2 before the said date i.e. when he got his name changed in the bills. 

9.      Learned district forum has rightly come to conclusion that on the date of occurrence complainant was not having insurable interest and dismissed the complaint.  Findings of learned District forum are well reasoned based on law and facts and cannot be disturbed.  Resultantly the appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed in limine.

November 16th, 2015

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri Member Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi Judicial Member Addl.Bench

S.K.