Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/18/126

M/S Onkar Engg. Works - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Manbir Singh dhindsa

10 May 2019

ORDER

THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPAR

                                 Consumer Complaint No.  126 of 27.11.2018

                                 Date of decision                    :    10.05.2018

 

M/s Onkar Engg. Works, Nera Vishkarma Madhir Mill Road, Morinda, District Rupnagar through its Prop. Ritu Bala wife of Anil Kumar resident of House No.206, Sugar Mill Road, Ward No.5, Morinda, Tehsil Morinda, District Rupnagar 

                                                                 ......Complainant

                                             Versus

1. United India Insurance Company Limited. Branch at Ist Floor Near PNB Bank, G.T. Road, Morinda, District Rupnagar 
2. United India Insurance Company Limited. Regional Office at Sukhmani Chambers 3, SCO No.68-70, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh.

  

           ....Opposite Parties

                                   Complaint under Section 12 of the                                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

 

                        SH. KARNAIL SINGH AHHI, PRESIDENT

                        CAPT. YUVINDER SINGH MATTA, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY

 

Sh. Manbir Singh Dhindsa, Adv. counsel for complainant  

Sh. Rajesh Sharma, Adv. counsel for O.Ps

 

                                           ORDER

              SH. KARNAIL SINGH AHHI, PRESIDENT

 

1.  M/s Onkar Engineer Works, through its proprietor Ritu Bala, wife of Anil Kumar, resident of House No.206, Sugar Mill Road, Ward No.5, Tehsil Morinda, District Rupnagar has filed the present complaint seeking directions to the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.3,10,000/- as insured value of the vehicle in question along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of theft of the vehicle till its realization; to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for physical, mental and monitory harassment to the complainant; to pay Rs.30,000/- as costs of litigation; any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deems fit be granted to the complainant, in the interest of justice.  
2. Brief facts made out from the complaint are that the husband of complainant was the owner of M/s Onkar Engineer Works which was the owner of Mahindra Bolero bearing registration No.PB-12-M-0014. On 15.1.2016, he had insured the vehicle in question from the O.Ps. company vide insurance policy No.1121813115P112765198 dated 16.1.2016 which was valid from 16.1.2016 to 15.1.2017 and the prop. had paid the premium of the insurance policy to the O.Ps. At the time of issuing the insurance police, the value of the vehicle in question has been assessed Rs.3,10,000/- by the O.Ps. The vehicle in question was registered in the name of M/s Onkar Engineer Works and complainant is the sole proprietor of the said firm. Earlier the husband of the complainant was running the said firm but he was missing and after that the complainant stepped into the shoe of her husband and now she is sole proprietor of the said firm. On 19.3.2016, brother in law of the complainant had gone to his maternal uncle at Jawahar Colony, Faridabad on the vehicle in question and at 7.00 PM he reached at the said place and parked the vehicle in question at Shanti Niketan Road near Gandha Nala. Thereafter, he went to the house of his maternal uncle. On the next day, when he came out from the house then he was shocked to see that the vehicle in question was not at the spot and thereafter he started searching the vehicle but could not find it. After that he lodged the complaint before the local police regarding the theft and police  registered the FIR No.158 dated 22.3.2016. The complainant immediately informed the O.Ps. regarding the theft of the insured vehicle and also submitted the application form along with necessary documents and fulfilled all the formalities as per directions and requirement of the O.Ps. and requested to release the claim. But after submitting the requisite claim papers, the O.Ps. had put off the matter on one pretext or the other. Hence, this complaint 
3. On notice, O.Ps appeared through counsel and filed written reply taking preliminary objections; that the complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint as the insurance is a contract between the insured and insurer Ritu Bala was not a proprietor of the firm; that this Hon'ble has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint; that there was no deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps. On merits, it was stated that answering O.ps. had insured the vehicle for a sum of Rs.3,10,00/- and issued the police in the name of M/s Omkar Engineer Works. As per papers Sh. Anil Kumar was only the prop. of the firm. As per DDR No.10 dated 29.3.2017 he is only missing meaning thereby that he is alive as on date. The complainant had not supplied any legal document before the answering O.Ps. like gift deed, transfer deed, agreement etc with regard to change of proprietor of the firm. So without any documents Ritu Bala is not a legal prop. of firm and she is not entitled to any compensation. Anil Kumar was the sole prop. of said firm, moreover sole proprietorship firm cannot be transferred or taken over by any person including the family members without creating any interest by the sole prop. in his life time. Since Anil Kumar is shown to be alive he is still proprietor of the said firm and he is the only person to claim the loss from the company any time till he lives. The vehicle was registered in the name of prop. firm under the signatures of the sole prop. Anil Kumar, so signing the documents by Renu Bala with regard to transfer of RC in the name of insurance company has no value in the eyes of law. Rest of allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint.

5.    On being called upon to do so, the learned counsel for the complainant has tendered duly sworn affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and closed the evidence. The learned counsel for the OPs have tendered duly sworn affidavit of Smt. Hemlata, Deputy Manager UIC Ex.OP1/A along with documents Ex.OP2/A to Ex.16/A and closed the evidence. 

6.    We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the file, carefully.

7.    Complainant counsel Sh. Manbir Singh Dhindsa, argued that M/s Onkar Engineer Works was having one vehicle Mohinda Bolero, PB-12-M-0014 which was got insured from the O.Ps. for the valid period from 16.1.2016 to 15.1.2017. On 19.3.2016, Brother in law of the complainant namely Gopal Chand had gone to Jawahar Colony, Fardiabad (Haryana) who parked the Mahindra Bolero and when on the next Gopal Chand went to get the Mahindra Bolero, he found the vehicle was not at the spot. After search, FIR No.158 dated 22.3.2016, under Section 379 IPC was got registered by said Gopal Chand. After the FIR the claim was lodged with the O.Ps. who repudiated the same. Hence, this complaint. He prayed that vehicle stands registered in the name of Anil Kumar proprietor of M/s Onkar Engineer Works and said Anil Kumar is missing prior to the occurrence whose wife namely Ritu Bala has preferred this complaint. Lastly prayed to allow the complaint with costs.

 8.   M/s Onkar Engineer Works, Morinda District Ropar, has filed this complaint through its proprietor Ritu Bala wife of Anil Kumar relating to the Mohindra Bolero, PB-12-M-0014 which was missing on 30.3.2016. Relating to the M/s Onkar Engineer Works complainant placed on file attested affidavit of Ritu Bala Ex.CW1/A, legal notice Ex.C1, FIR Ex.C2, Ex.C3 is the policy of United India Insurance Company and then Ex.C4 insurance letter in the name of M/s Onkar Engineer Works. Beside this, Ritu Bala attached her Adhar Card and its Copy of Ex.C3, copy of Adhar card of Anil Kumar Ex.C4. Beside this, there is nothing on the file.

9.    After going through the said documentary evidence, this forum is not clear whether the proprietor of M/s Onkar Engineer Works was registered in the name of Mrs. Ritu Bala or she has transferred any proprietorship title in her name, which is relied upon by the O.Ps. One thing is admitted that Anil Kumar was the proprietor of M/s Omkar Engineer Works who is unheard for the last few years till today neither he has been declared dead nor unheard. Even her successor are not incorporated in the list of proprietorship. So Ritu Bala stands nowhere in the place of Anil Kumar as complainant.  Another part of the arguments of the O.Ps. counsel is based upon the documentary evidence Ex.OP2/A to Ex.OP17/A, which proves Anil Kumar is untraceable. United India Insurance Company had issued the policy in the name of M/s Omkar Engineer Works. The vehicle Mahindra Bolero is registered in the name of M/s Omkar Engineer Works i.e. why the RC and insurance policy are the same but the O.Ps. allege that till date no application was moved for the correction of the mistake of change of proprietorship for the best reason known to her. In this way, Ritu Bala is not the consumer. So she has no right to file the complaint. 

10.  Coming to the main relief, whether the complaint has rightly been filed on behalf of Anil Kumar by Ritu Bala that version goes against the complainant. M/s Onkar Engineer Works is the registered body. Government of Punjab issued RC in the name of M/s Omkar Engineer Works i.e. neither in the name of Anil Kumar nor Ritu Bala, it means competent person on behalf of M/s Omkar Engineer Works is competent to file the complaint. No certificate from the Government relating to the vehicle or M/s Onkar Engineer Works is placed on the file by Ritu Bala. If Anil Kumar was the proprietor, who has not yet been declared unheard or dead. Then in his absence, survivorship or comes in the name of Ritu Bala and on this ground, the insurance company has declined the claim. So the complaint is without merit.

 15. In the light of discussion made above, the complaint stands dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs. 

16. The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed and consigned to Record Room.          

 

                     ANNOUNCED                                    (KARNAIL SINGH AHHI)

                     Dated.10.05.2019                                    PRESIDENT
 

 

 

 

                                                         (CAPT. YUVINDER SINGH MATTA)

                                                                                  MEMBER