Punjab

Sangrur

CC/434/2018

Abhi Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

United India Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Appolojit Singh Kamalpur

05 Dec 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.    434

                                                Instituted on:      15.10.2018

                                                Decided on:       05.12.2019

 

 

Abhi Gupta son of Late Sh. Darshan Gupta, resident of Street No.3, Agar Nagar, Gaushala Road, Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

United India Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office: Railway Station Road, Sangrur through its Divisional Manager.

                                                        ..Opposite party

 

 

For the complainant            :       Shri Appolojit Singh, Adv.

For Opp.party                    :       Shri Ashish Garg, Adv.

 

 

Quorum                                           

Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President

Ms. Vandana Sidhu, Member

Shri Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

ORDER BY:     

Shri Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member.

 

 

1.             Shri Abhi Gupta, complainant  has preferred the present complaint against the opposite party (referred to as OP in short) on the ground that previously swift VDI car bearing registration number PB-13-AE-5629 was owned by father of the complainant Shri Darshan Gupta, who died and after his death the car in question was got transferred in the name of the complainant being legal heir. After transfer of the vehicle the complainant gave intimation to the Op regarding the death of his father and to transfer the insurance policy in his name.  But the vehicle in question met with an accident on 1.4.2018 and the complainant approached the OP and gave intimation to the OP who appointed surveyor and the estimate was prepared for a  loss of Rs.1,70,000/-. Thereafter the complainant submitted all the documents to the OP for payment but the OP repudiated the claim on false ground. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complainant has prayed that the OP be directed to pay to the complainant the claim amount of Rs.1,70,000/-  along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of  accident till realisation and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2.             In reply of the complaint filed by the OP, it is admitted that the car in question was insured with the OP for the period from 30.10.2017 to 29.10.2018 for Rs.2,50,000/- but it is denied that after the death of the insured Shri Darshan Gupta, the complainant got transferred the said car in his name and the car in question was got transferred in the name of the complainant on 14.9.2018. It is further stated that after receiving intimation dated 6.4.2018 the OP appointed Er. Sanjeev Kumar Verma to assess the loss and the surveyor after inspecting the vehicle in question assessed the loss at Rs.70,682/-. However, it is denied that the complainant has spent an amount of Rs.1,70,000/- for repairs of the car.   It is stated that since the complainant has no insurable interest at the time of accident, as such the claim was rightly repudiated.  Lastly the OP has prayed that the complaint be dismissed with special costs.

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-3 copies of documents and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP number 1 and 2 has produced Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-23 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence.

4.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and evidence produced on the file and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.

5.             It is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant obtained private car package policy for the vehicle number PB-13-AE-5629 for the period from 30.10.2017 to 29.10.2018 on the name of his father Shri Darshan Gupta from OP.  It is an admitted fact that the car in question met with an accident on 1.4.2018 and the complainant approached the OP and intimated regarding the said accident and submitted all the documents with the office of the OP and the OP repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 9.8.2018 on the ground that he has not disclosed the material information regarding the death of the insured and concealed the same from the agent of the company while getting the vehicle insured as such the claim was repudiated on the ground of concealment of material facts while obtaining the insurance policy and on the ground that the complainant has no insurable interest in vehicle in question.

6.             We have also gone through the documentary evidence on record as well as copy of death certificate and observed that Shri Darshan Gupta on whose name the insurance was obtained expired on 7.7.2015, whereas the insurance was obtained for the period from 30.10.2017 to 29.10.2018.  Since the complainant has miserably failed to establish on record that he has any insurable interest in the vehicle in question as the original owner Shri Darshan Gupta has already died on 7.7.2015 and the complainant failed to get the vehicle as well as insurance transferred in his name.  As such, we find that the complainant has miserably failed to establish his case. To support this contention, the learned counsel for OP has cited Tushar Mehta versus Oriental Insurance Company Limited II (2019) CPJ 117 (Uttrakhand State Commission), wherein it has been held that there was no privity of contract between the complainant and the insurance company and complainant cannot said to be a consumer of the insurance company and had no locus standi to maintain consumer complaint for reimbursement of loss occasioned on account of vehicle registered as well as insured in the name of his deceased father on the date of subject loss, inspite of fact that his father had expired long back.  The same view has also been taken by the Hon’ble National Commission in 2015  (2) CPJ 628 (NC).

7.             In view of our above discussion, we dismiss the complaint of the complainant. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

8.             This complaint could not be decided and order could not be pronounced within stipulated time period because posts of President and Lady Member are lying vacant since 7.8.2018 and 16.09.2018 respectively. The President is doing additional duty only for two days a week.

Pronounced.

                        December 5, 2019.     

 

(Vinod Kumar Gulati)  (Vandana Sidhu) (Amrinder Singh Sidhu)

          Member                   Member                  President