Punjab

Sangrur

CC/539/2017

Balwinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh.Amit Goyal

15 Mar 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.    539

                                                Instituted on:      11.10.2017

                                                Decided on:       15.03.2018

 

1. Balwinder Singh son of Ajaib Singh, resident of Village Chahar, Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur 2. Gurdeep Kaur W/o Dharamdev Singh, resident of village Gurbuxpura, Tehsil Dhuri, District Sangrur, now resident of Dugri, Tehsil & District Ludhiana.

                                                        …Complainants

                                Versus

1.     United India Insurance Company Ltd.  Branch Gaushala Road, Mansa through its Sr. Branch Manager.

2.     United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Regd. & Head Office: 24, Whites Road, Chennai through its M.D.

3.     Vinod Kumar Singla S/o Sh. Sarup Chand, resident of Shere Punjab Market, Dirba, Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur.

                                                        ..Opposite parties.

 

For the complainant    :       Shri Amit Goyal, Adv.

For Ops No.1&2        :       Shri Ashish Garg, Adv.      

For OP No.3              :       Shri V.K.Gupta, Adv.

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

1.             Shri Balwinder Singh and Smt. Gurdeep Kaur, complainants (referred to as complainant in short) have preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant is the consumer of the OPs as he availed the services of the OPs by getting insured his tanker (Make Bharat Benz Model 2015) bearing registration number PB-13-AL-8577 for Rs.23,00,000/- under policy number 2004033116P105213796 by paying the requisite premium of Rs.46,930/-.  Further case of the complainant is that previously complainant number 2 was the owner of the vehicle, which was got financed from Daimler Financial Services, Mansa, however, the complainant number  2 sold the said tanker to the complainant vide her affidavit dated 31.12.2015. It is further averred that since the vehicle was hypothecated with the finance company, so the same could not be transferred in the name of the complainant number 1 without clearing the loan amount, so an agreement dated 31.12.2015 was executed between the complainant number 1 and 2 to the effect that the complainant number 1 shall pay the remaining loan amount by way of regular instalments and further in case of any claim arising out of the accident etc. then the complainant number 1 shall be responsible for the same.  Further case of the complainant number 1 is that the tanker in question met with an accident on 11.12.2016 near Beas Satsang Bhawan Malerkotla on 11.12.2016 during the subsistence of the insurance policy and the complainant number 1 gave intimation about the loss, as such the OP number 1 appointed surveyor and the vehicle was got repaired by spending an amount of Rs.4,19,392/- on the repairs of the vehicle.  Thereafter the complainant submitted all the documents to the OPs, but the Ops repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 23.3.2017 on the ground that the complainant has no insurable interest, which is said to be totally wrong and illegal. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to pay to the complainant the insurance claim amount of Rs.4,19,392/-  along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of accident i.e. 11.12.2016 till realisation and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply of the complaint filed by the Ops number 1 and 2, it is admitted that the vehicle in question is insured with the OPs under the policy as mentioned in the complaint in the name of Gurdeep Kaur for the period from 17.7.2016 to 16.7.2017 for Rs.23,00,000/- subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. It is admitted after receipt of the intimation about the accident of the vehicle, the OP number 2 appointed Er. Bhupesh Bhardwaj, surveyor and loss assessor to conduct the spot survey, who submitted his report dated 2.1.2017.  Further case of the Ops is that after receipt of the survey report, the OP appointed Er. Parveen Kumr Goyal, surveyor and loss assessor to assess the final loss, who assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.3,01,604.22 after deducting the depreciation.   But, it is admitted that the OP number 2 repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that the complainant has no insurable interest in the vehicle as the same has already been sold to Shri Balwinder Singh, but the complainant number 1 did not intimate the Ops about the same. Thus, alleging no deficiency in service on their part has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with special costs.

 

3.             In reply filed by OP number 3, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable, that the complainant has no cause of action and that the complainant has concealed material facts from this Forum. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant number 2 or his representative came to the OPs for getting the insurance policy of the alleged vehicle and the OP issued the cover note/policy.  The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-14 copies of the documents and  affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs number 1 and 2 has produced Ex.OP1&2/1 to Ex.OP1&2/7 copies of documents and affidavits and closed evidence. The learned counsel for OP number 3 has produced Ex.OP3/1 affidavit and closed evidence.

 

5.             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. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

6.             It is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant got comprehensively insured his tanker in question bearing registration number PB-13-AL-8577 from the OPs for the period from 17.07.2016 to 16.07.2017 for Rs.23,00,000/-  by paying the requisite premium of Rs.46,930/-, as is evident from the copy of insurance policy, Ex.C-1 on record. It is also not in dispute that the vehicle in question met with an accident on 11.12.2016 near Beas Satsang Bhawan Malerkotla, of which DDR number 21 dated 11.12.2016 was got recorded, as is evident from the copy of DDR on record as Ex.C-2. It is further admitted fact that after receipt of the intimation of loss of the vehicle in accident, the OPs immediately appointed surveyor and loss assessor to submit the survey report, who submitted his report, a copy of which ion record is Ex.OP1&2/4, whereby he assessed the loss to the vehicle to the tune of Rs.3,01,604/-, but the Ops did not pay the amount to the complainant on the ground that the complainant has no insurable interest, as the vehicle in question is in the name of one Mrs. Gurdeep Kaur, resident of Sherpur, District, Sangrur, as is also evident from the copy of the insurance policy Ex.OP1&2/1.  But, the learned counsel for the complainant has contended that the vehicle in question was purchased by the complainant Balwinder Singh, as is evident from the Photostat copies of the affidavits of Balwinder Singh and Smt. Gurdeep Kaur, copies of which on record is Ex.C-11 and Ex.C-12, which clearly reveals that the vehicle in question had been purchased by the complainant Balwinder Singh from Smt. Gurdeep Kaur, and as such, he stepped into the shoes of Smt. Gurdeep Kaur, as he purchased the vehicle in question. An agreement between Balwinder Singh and Gurdeep Kaur is also on record whereby it shows that the vehicle in question was purchased by the complainant Balwinder Singh, a copy of the agreement on record is Ex.C-13. It is worth mentioning here that even the complainant Balwinder Singh got renewed the insurance cover note from the OPs on 15.7.2016 and the proposal form was also submitted by the complainant, Balwinder Singh under his signatures and the Ops charged the premium of Rs.46,930/- from the complainant Balwinder Singh, as such we feel that the complainant is a consumer of the Ops who got insured the vehicle in question from the Ops number 1 and 2, more so when it is proved on record that Smt. Gurdeep Kaur had already sold the vehicle in question to the complainant on 31.12.2015 and the vehicle could not be got transferred due to outstanding loan against the vehicle.  Further it is worth mentioning here that the Ops have charged the premium against the insurance of the truck in question and the Ops now cannot deny the claim on flimsy grounds.  To support the contention of the complainant, the learned counsel for the complainant has cited Oriental Insurance Company Limited and others versus Abhishek Kumar and another 2017(1) RCR (Civil) 128, wherein it is clearly held that the original holder sold the vehicle and then during the currency of the insurance policy, the vehicle was stolen and the OP repudiated the claim, but the Hon’ble Court held that the transferere will step into the shoes of the transferrer including regarding benefit of the insurance policy.  So, in the present case also, the insurance of the vehicle was in existence at the time of loss of the vehicle.  Further same view has also been taken by the Hon’ble National Commission in New India Assurance company Limited and another versus Mohd Faiyaz Khan and another 2014(22) RCR Civil 746 (NC).  Further the same view has also been taken by the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in Om Parkash through LRs. Versus Ravinder Kumar and others 2016(1) RCR (Civil 177.

 

7.             The insurance companies are in the habit to take these type of projections to save themselves from paying the insurance claim. The insurance companies are only interested in earning the premiums and find ways and means to decline claims. The above said view was taken by the Hon’ble Justice Ranjit Singh of Punjab and Haryana High Court in case titled as New India Assurance Company Limited versus Smt. Usha Yadav and others 2008(3) R.C.R. 9 Civil) 111

 

8.             Accordingly, in view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OPs number 1 and 2 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.3,01,604/- (as assessed by the surveyor) along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 11.10.2017 till realisation.  We further direct the OPs to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.10,000/- on account of compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment and Rs.5,000/- on account of litigation expenses.

 

9.             This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                        Pronounced.

                        March 15, 2018.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                                President

 

 

                                                           (Sarita Garg)

                                                                Member

                                                             

                               

 

                                                        (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                                    Member